5 ms·

What makes news sites so special that they, unlike every other website, get to charge Google when they are indexed, and more shockingly, that they can compel Go

by creata 6y ago

What makes news sites so special that they, unlike every other website, get to charge Google when they are indexed, and more shockingly, that they can compel Google to index them?

kevingadd 6y ago
FTA: 'In 2019, Google announced it was going to stop displaying "snippets" from French news articles in search results. Google believed that showing only news story headlines, not brief excerpts from articles, would bring it into compliance with the new law.' The problem is that they were going beyond indexing: they were lifting content from the article wholesale and embedding it into search results (without permission). They do this with all sorts of other stuff too, news sites aren't the only ones who get irritated by it.
- rognjen 6y ago
  > lifting content from the article wholesale From your quote: > brief excerpts
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    brief excerpts are content, my friend. If they weren't, readers wouldn't care about them and Google would have no reason to go through the trouble of scraping them and inserting them into search results.
    - rognjen 6y ago
      Excerpts are definitely content. They're definitely not wholesale.
- jasode 6y ago
  >The problem is that they were going beyond indexing: they were lifting content from the article wholesale and embedding it into search results (without permission). Yes, but your full quoted text further explains that even just linking the headlines _without_ the snippets was still not in compliance. We have 30+ years of the world wide web being built on referred url links (no snippets) without monetary payment but now French news organizations want compensation for it. I don't understand that logic. They get extra visibility + traffic clicks from Google but also want to be paid for it?!? If after a Apple WWDC event, the front page of HN is filled with url links to Apple press releases and announcements, it doesn't mean HN should pay money to Apple Inc to send eyeballs to "apple.com". Linking to other urls (for free) is how the web works. IMO, removing the embedded snippets should have been enough.
- tpxl 6y ago
  > they were lifting content from the article wholesale and embedding it into search results How is this not straight up copyright infringement? Or have the sites agreed to it and are now just being whiny babies?
  - dontblink 6y ago
    The latter. It's ridiculous. I wish Google had not caved.
  - wutbrodo 6y ago
    The sites always had an opt-out of being scraped, via robots.txt. Google made a special-case change for French news sites where they stopped showing snippets, and just showed URLs (still opt-outable via robots.txt). The complaint was just a pretext to force Google to pay protection money against the spirit of the law, as if France is some failed-state thug-government like Libya or something.
rognjen 6y ago
Lobbying power. Similar to how the cinemas prevented any film that doesn't debut in a specific number of cinemas for a specific exclusive period from being included in festivals and being eligible for rewards.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
trident5000 6y ago
You make under the table deals with the politicians in power to promote them as a candidate and oppose their opposition in exchange for legislation like this.
Hamuko 6y ago
News sites are so special that Google has a separate and distinct section for them: Google News.
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  That just means they form a coherent vertical, as do retail sites (Google shopping), brick-and-mortar stores/venues/restaurants (Google maps), flights (Google flights), hotels (Google hotels), etc. You're really straining the definition of the word "special". It's especially inapplicable to the parent comment's referenced claim, that they're special enough that Google needs to be legally forced into an unwilling transaction with them.
vladojsem 6y ago
i think there was similar case with google abusing the dominance with its shopping comparison service. they got fined in 2017 by eu commission1 [1] https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1784_en.htm https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1784_en.htm
seertaak 6y ago
What makes them special is that, ostensibly, their role is at least in part to hold power to account. So it's important that news sites are financially independent. If not, they're in effect beholden to other actors, whether in government or the private sector. Or to put it differently, we need more WSJ and NYT, less Breitbart and Buzzfeed.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  People disagree. They want entertaining news for free.
  - manicdee 6y ago
    That is how you get Breitbart and Infowars becoming the main source of “information” for many people.
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  >their role is at least in part to hold power to account And they suck horribly at doing that. All most news sites ever do is constantly pander to uber-elite "woke" moral sensibilities and pearl-clutching. That's why people don't view them as important and don't want to pay for them.
- qwertycrackers 6y ago
  If this is the argument being advanced, then the legislation is equivalent to passing a special tax on Google to pay for this "vital public service" (not debating the validity of this perspective). Why should Google and only Google pay this tax? If newspapers are so important, pay them right out of the public treasury.
PoignardAzur 6y ago
The "compel" part is what pisses me off. Google absolutely respected the letter of the law, then the Macron government got mad because the spirit of the law was "we want to extract money from Google without giving them anything in return". This is pure regulatory capture from media corporations.

by creata 6y ago

What makes news sites so special that they, unlike every other website, get to charge Google when they are indexed, and more shockingly, that they can compel Google to index them?

kevingadd 6y ago

FTA: 'In 2019, Google announced it was going to stop displaying "snippets" from French news articles in search results. Google believed that showing only news story headlines, not brief excerpts from articles, would bring it into compliance with the new law.' The problem is that they were going beyond indexing: they were lifting content from the article wholesale and embedding it into search results (without permission). They do this with all sorts of other stuff too, news sites aren't the only ones who get irritated by it.

rognjen 6y ago
> lifting content from the article wholesale From your quote: > brief excerpts
- kevingadd 6y ago
  brief excerpts are content, my friend. If they weren't, readers wouldn't care about them and Google would have no reason to go through the trouble of scraping them and inserting them into search results.
  - rognjen 6y ago
    Excerpts are definitely content. They're definitely not wholesale.
jasode 6y ago
>The problem is that they were going beyond indexing: they were lifting content from the article wholesale and embedding it into search results (without permission). Yes, but your full quoted text further explains that even just linking the headlines _without_ the snippets was still not in compliance. We have 30+ years of the world wide web being built on referred url links (no snippets) without monetary payment but now French news organizations want compensation for it. I don't understand that logic. They get extra visibility + traffic clicks from Google but also want to be paid for it?!? If after a Apple WWDC event, the front page of HN is filled with url links to Apple press releases and announcements, it doesn't mean HN should pay money to Apple Inc to send eyeballs to "apple.com". Linking to other urls (for free) is how the web works. IMO, removing the embedded snippets should have been enough.
tpxl 6y ago
> they were lifting content from the article wholesale and embedding it into search results How is this not straight up copyright infringement? Or have the sites agreed to it and are now just being whiny babies?
- dontblink 6y ago
  The latter. It's ridiculous. I wish Google had not caved.
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  The sites always had an opt-out of being scraped, via robots.txt. Google made a special-case change for French news sites where they stopped showing snippets, and just showed URLs (still opt-outable via robots.txt). The complaint was just a pretext to force Google to pay protection money against the spirit of the law, as if France is some failed-state thug-government like Libya or something.

rognjen 6y ago

Lobbying power. Similar to how the cinemas prevented any film that doesn't debut in a specific number of cinemas for a specific exclusive period from being included in festivals and being eligible for rewards.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

trident5000 6y ago

You make under the table deals with the politicians in power to promote them as a candidate and oppose their opposition in exchange for legislation like this.

Hamuko 6y ago

News sites are so special that Google has a separate and distinct section for them: Google News.

wutbrodo 6y ago
That just means they form a coherent vertical, as do retail sites (Google shopping), brick-and-mortar stores/venues/restaurants (Google maps), flights (Google flights), hotels (Google hotels), etc. You're really straining the definition of the word "special". It's especially inapplicable to the parent comment's referenced claim, that they're special enough that Google needs to be legally forced into an unwilling transaction with them.

vladojsem 6y ago

i think there was similar case with google abusing the dominance with its shopping comparison service. they got fined in 2017 by eu commission1 [1] https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1784_en.htm https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1784_en.htm

seertaak 6y ago

What makes them special is that, ostensibly, their role is at least in part to hold power to account. So it's important that news sites are financially independent. If not, they're in effect beholden to other actors, whether in government or the private sector. Or to put it differently, we need more WSJ and NYT, less Breitbart and Buzzfeed.

dehrmann 6y ago
People disagree. They want entertaining news for free.
- manicdee 6y ago
  That is how you get Breitbart and Infowars becoming the main source of “information” for many people.
notsureaboutpg 6y ago
>their role is at least in part to hold power to account And they suck horribly at doing that. All most news sites ever do is constantly pander to uber-elite "woke" moral sensibilities and pearl-clutching. That's why people don't view them as important and don't want to pay for them.
qwertycrackers 6y ago
If this is the argument being advanced, then the legislation is equivalent to passing a special tax on Google to pay for this "vital public service" (not debating the validity of this perspective). Why should Google and only Google pay this tax? If newspapers are so important, pay them right out of the public treasury.

PoignardAzur 6y ago

The "compel" part is what pisses me off. Google absolutely respected the letter of the law, then the Macron government got mad because the spirit of the law was "we want to extract money from Google without giving them anything in return". This is pure regulatory capture from media corporations.