The way the bill is written is disappointing because it conflates two different things together: For the purposes of this Part, a service makes content availab

The way the bill is written is disappointing because it conflates two different things together: For the purposes of this Part, a service makes content available if: (a)the content is reproduced on the service, or is otherwise placed on the service; or (b)a link to the content is provided on the service; or (c)an extract of the content is provided on the service. I think most of us would agree that a search engine being charged for providing links (b) is pretty dumb. But with the rise of content embeds and republishing (a/c), it's a completely different scenario when Facebook is sucking up your content for the benefit of their users. So while I feel this is a raw deal for search engines, it is about time that social media platforms paid their dues.