6 ms·

The code was to require the companies to negotiate in good faith on how to pay news media for use of their content, advise news media in advance of algorithm ch

The code was to require the companies to negotiate in good faith on how to pay news media for use of their content, advise news media in advance of algorithm changes that would affect content rankings, favour original source news content in search page results, and share data with media companies. This seems...confused. At that point why wouldn't Facebook, Google, et al just ban the media company links from their platforms and avoid the hassle?

save_ferris 7y ago
Because news media represents one of their largest channels of legitimate traffic and engagement. It’s why Google put so many resources into AMP, Facebook on their curated news feeds, etc. Removing news links would probably eventually kill social media platforms in the long run, or at least accept a new path with much less growth.
- AbrahamParangi 7y ago
  I think you overestimate the market pull for the product legacy media companies produce. Removing legacy news from Facebook and Google would certainly hasten the death of legacy news and have no effect on tech companies, who's users would just replace legacy news with reddit posts, blog spam, etc.
  - Spivak 7y ago
    But Reddit and blog spam sites just repackage the content from legacy media companies so the well would likely dry up for everyone. Honestly it might be nice for information to move a little slower.
- myrandomcomment 7y ago
  Spain tried this and Google just dropped all the Spanish news sites from Google News in Spain. "We regret that due to the Spanish law, Spanish publishers aren't featured in Google News and Google News is closed in Spain."
  - myrandomcomment 7y ago
    Here is the link to the google site saying why no Google News in Spain. https://support.google.com/news/publisher-center/answer/9609687?hl=en https://support.google.com/news/publisher-center/answer/9609...
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    I suspect there's a decent chance the same thing will happen in France, if the appeals process doesn't reach some kind of more reasonable solution.
- 0xy 7y ago
  Where would Snapchat be without their trending (garbage) screen that nobody looks at? All emerging social media totally ignores news. Instagram? Almost zero news. Tik Tok? No news. Snapchat? Garbage clickbait nobody looks at. Facebook is the antiquated ugly stepchild of social media. What's their engagement like for people <18?
asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
I don't really understand how you can "negotiate in good faith" how to pay when the government is holding a gun to the head of one side saying that they will have to pay. If the government wants to tax internet giants to pay for traditional news media, it should just do that. IMO, news media is basically a public good, in the sense that it's non-rival and basically non-excludable. Unfortunately, it's also a relatively low personal value public good. What I mean is that the typical person cannot make decisions that benefit themselves based on the news, and the news provides little entertainment value compared to e.g. video games or television. That is not to say it has no value, just that the value it produces is low compared to what it costs to make. In the past, news media was more valuable, because there was less other media around. Now there are so many media channels (videogames, cable, broadcast, music, social, YouTube, etc.) that even if they were all equally entertaining to the news, news' share of the whole pie would be smaller. But they're not equally entertaining, they're more entertaining. So news loses out. Despite its low entertainment value, on a social level, there is definitely some value to having an informed public. So maybe the government should subsidize the creation of informative content, as it does with the BBC in the UK. And maybe funding for this should be partially derived from taxes on internet companies. But it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that the government would basically mandate a transfer of wealth from internet companies directly to the wallets of news media owners.
buboard 7y ago
G and FB could keep removing people from their index until at some point individuals will start asking them to pay them for any content they upload. This tax is just the beginning of this process.

save_ferris 7y ago

Because news media represents one of their largest channels of legitimate traffic and engagement. It’s why Google put so many resources into AMP, Facebook on their curated news feeds, etc. Removing news links would probably eventually kill social media platforms in the long run, or at least accept a new path with much less growth.

AbrahamParangi 7y ago
I think you overestimate the market pull for the product legacy media companies produce. Removing legacy news from Facebook and Google would certainly hasten the death of legacy news and have no effect on tech companies, who's users would just replace legacy news with reddit posts, blog spam, etc.
- Spivak 7y ago
  But Reddit and blog spam sites just repackage the content from legacy media companies so the well would likely dry up for everyone. Honestly it might be nice for information to move a little slower.
myrandomcomment 7y ago
Spain tried this and Google just dropped all the Spanish news sites from Google News in Spain. "We regret that due to the Spanish law, Spanish publishers aren't featured in Google News and Google News is closed in Spain."
- myrandomcomment 7y ago
  Here is the link to the google site saying why no Google News in Spain. https://support.google.com/news/publisher-center/answer/9609687?hl=en https://support.google.com/news/publisher-center/answer/9609...
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  I suspect there's a decent chance the same thing will happen in France, if the appeals process doesn't reach some kind of more reasonable solution.
0xy 7y ago
Where would Snapchat be without their trending (garbage) screen that nobody looks at? All emerging social media totally ignores news. Instagram? Almost zero news. Tik Tok? No news. Snapchat? Garbage clickbait nobody looks at. Facebook is the antiquated ugly stepchild of social media. What's their engagement like for people <18?

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago

I don't really understand how you can "negotiate in good faith" how to pay when the government is holding a gun to the head of one side saying that they will have to pay. If the government wants to tax internet giants to pay for traditional news media, it should just do that. IMO, news media is basically a public good, in the sense that it's non-rival and basically non-excludable. Unfortunately, it's also a relatively low personal value public good. What I mean is that the typical person cannot make decisions that benefit themselves based on the news, and the news provides little entertainment value compared to e.g. video games or television. That is not to say it has no value, just that the value it produces is low compared to what it costs to make. In the past, news media was more valuable, because there was less other media around. Now there are so many media channels (videogames, cable, broadcast, music, social, YouTube, etc.) that even if they were all equally entertaining to the news, news' share of the whole pie would be smaller. But they're not equally entertaining, they're more entertaining. So news loses out. Despite its low entertainment value, on a social level, there is definitely some value to having an informed public. So maybe the government should subsidize the creation of informative content, as it does with the BBC in the UK. And maybe funding for this should be partially derived from taxes on internet companies. But it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that the government would basically mandate a transfer of wealth from internet companies directly to the wallets of news media owners.

buboard 7y ago

G and FB could keep removing people from their index until at some point individuals will start asking them to pay them for any content they upload. This tax is just the beginning of this process.