4 ms·
> I believe what the law actually says is that Google should to pay news providers when it displays content from their websites in search listings As far as I
by rognjen 6y ago
> I believe what the law actually says is that Google should to pay news providers when it displays content from their websites in search listings
As far as I remember the more ludicrous part is that the code mandates that Google must include news results. That means that Google must pay for all news links. It couldn't, for example, decide to partner with some news orgs and not others. It also couldn't just remove news altogether. The penalties proposed are also insane. Billions if I recall.
Which then leaves them with either effectively being held hostage to pulling search entirely as described here.
- squiggleblaz 6y agoAfaik, they're allowed to omit news as long as they also omit all news. They cannot simply omit Australian news and include international news. Therefore, the Australian google would not contain links to Washington Post or NYT. This is probably to the advantage of the existing large players, since a new smaller player would find it much harder to get traction. We all know the domain name to Mr Murdoch's news websites, but we do not necessarily know the domain name to new media news websites. And we probably won't head off to NYT expecting to get decent coverage of Australian news for natural reasons. The result is probably going to be a disaster, with fake news spreading as images on Facebook, which will be somewhat trusted since everyone knows you can't find the source in Google and you can't link to it on Facebook, so the fact that you can't confirm it doesn't mean you can call it refuted.