5 ms·

I'd argue that headlines and images are worth a lot, especially coming from actual journalist and photographers (not niche seo news sites). It is almost conside

by asar 6y ago

I'd argue that headlines and images are worth a lot, especially coming from actual journalist and photographers (not niche seo news sites). It is almost considered normal for companies scrape the web and combine different sources into personalized feeds for their own user bas, as Google does. But it's not normal, you could probably say it's stealing.

qsort 6y ago
It's definitely normal, and massively hypocritical on the news sites' part. If they didn't want their content to be indexed by search results, they could ask Google to remove it, but obviously they want to have their cake and eat it too. This is just "Europe trying to somehow regulate big tech chapter #N-plus-one", and while I do actually sympathize with the broader goal, news companies of all people complaining about Google don't deserve any compassion whatsoever.
- anon98356 6y ago
  Why not? Google set itself up effectively as a gatekeeper to their content (whether by design or not that is the current situation) then completely gutted their primary revenue stream. Also, the major driver of this news is Google's attempts to get Australia to drop legislation. Australia is about as far away from Europe as you can get
  - qsort 6y ago
    > Google set itself up effectively as a gatekeeper to their content This isn't a fair characterization. They want their content to be indexed by Google, and furthermore most of those entities have separate distribution channels (television networks, print newspapers, etc.) that Google can't touch. Most people don't want to buy newspapers or watch news channels, but frankly they are absolutely correct, because 99% of that is freaking garbage no better than your average Facebook group. > Australia s/Europe/politicians-worldwide/g My point wasn't about Europe in particular (just observing that this kind of move, for better or for worse, is more popular in the EU). Again, I do agree that we should do something about Google & friends, but this piece of legislation is the classical politician's fallacy: we should do something, this is something, hence this is good.
    - anon98356 6y ago
      I think it is a fair characterisation. They want their content on Google because if they don't then it won't be seen. I'm not saying this was a deliberate strategy by Google but it is the reality. I would argue most people don't want to buy newspapers because we have created an expectation that content should be free. As to the quality of the content, a) that's subjective and b) it can be seen as natural evolution of an industry whose income source has been decimated by Google/Facebook. It's a lot cheaper to produce what you (and I do as well, to be fair) consider garbage than to produce the quality content we would like to see coming from newspapers.
      - alisonkisk 6y ago
        Are you saying that if Google doesn't have News (like in Spain), that people will just stop reading the news at all? If so, news obviously is t very important, since there are many ways to find news, including searching for "news site" on Google!
- jariel 6y ago
  The problem here is that Google is a monopoly. It's like if there were a single supermarket chain and they refused to carry a product. Oh well. Customers don't really like it, but in the grand scheme the supermarket doesn't care. There are also real issues about value creation and value capture in economies. Some places are good at one and not the other. Google depends on 'the content of the world' being given to them for free, they'd be nothing without it, by being a 'single point of access' it gives them a lot of power. So free market arguments apply, but it's still more complicated.
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    www.bing.com/news
  - pb7 6y ago
    Monopoly doesn't mean "company I don't like". There is absolutely nothing stopping you from searching for news on another search engine. Even more importantly, there is even less stopping you from going directly to your favorite news site.
    - jariel 6y ago
      Neither of your examples illustrate the nature of monopoly, even by technical definition. There are basically zero markets in which there is one completely dominant player due to the nature of 'product quality' alone, there are always external factors or even natural artifacts of the system that facilitate a dominant player. For the same reason that YC companies don't go ahead and just compete with airliner manufacturers such as Boeing whereupon the only competition is derived from massive, state-backed players - it is not possible to complete with Google today. The barriers to entry towards building a great search engine are likely more insurmountable than even those for airline carriers, the notion that some entity with the 'right stuff' could go ahead and do it is laughable at face value. Compounded with the fact that Google has entrenched and most likely anti-competitive distribution to market via Android, Chrome - the argument becomes moot. So first, we need to separate Android, Chrome and Google at very least, and then ensure that access to browsing technologies is on a truly level playing field. That would be a good start. At this point, frankly, many other browser technologies - even those materially inferior would start to come to the fore - which is probably illustrative of where the 'true power' of Google comes from, i.e. more from distribution dominance than from actual search tech. While we are at it we can legislate grounds for app competition, platform openness, personal data ownership and the rules concerning the objective self-regulation of social media companies. At the same time, we shouldn't leave the 'sleeping giant' MS Windows distribution monopoly out of our sights either. Google has been a barrier to progress for almost a decade now, they are just another Oracle but with pink and green hair.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  > If they didn't want their content to be indexed by search results, they could ask Google to remove it, You're describing a classic prisoner's dilemma. That is, it's in the interest of the news industry as a whole to not list their content for free, but if individual news companies do that, they will lose out relative to the alternative, so every individual news company is trapped in a situation they don't prefer. Google set this prisoner's dilemma to their advantage, using their position as a monopoly power to create it. It's reasonable, then, for the EU and the news industry to seek to remove Google's monopoly advantages.
  - qsort 6y ago
    No, this is not the prisoner's dilemma, because the parties can communicate and are not bound to the original decision. What you're suggesting is that the news companies form a cartel. > It's reasonable, then, for the EU and the news industry to seek to remove Google's monopoly advantages. Yes, it is. But this legislation does nothing to attempt to break Google's monopoly, while at the same time granting very weird and very specific privileges to the very rich, very well-connected, very corrupt news company owners. Google is absolutely a monopoly and is absolutely abusing that position. We should stop the monopoly situation, not introduce very weird stuff that just so happens to favor people with no reasonable claims whatsoever except "I'm friends with the regulator".
    - throwaway2245 6y ago
      > ...granting very weird and very specific privileges to the very rich, very well-connected, very corrupt... I agree - and this solution has been agreed by Google because it suits their interests. They now get to collude with other powerful actors without having to worry about the less powerful (and have set this as an available precedent across the EU). I would find it more satisfying if Australia called Google's bluff and told them where to go.
    - majewsky 6y ago
      > No, this is not the prisoner's dilemma, because the parties can communicate and are not bound to the original decision. What you're suggesting is that the news companies form a cartel. The second sentence disproves the first. It's effectively a prisoner's dilemma because communication between the players is effectively infeasible through illegality.
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  If you can't innovate it's time to regulate!
- brmgb 6y ago
  > If they didn't want their content to be indexed by search results, they could ask Google to remove it No, they can't. The first answer to the Google issue from the French press was sensible. Individualy they know their content is worth money but individualy they are weak so they try to form a syndicate to negociate with Google in a pay-or-nothing position. But Google argued the French equivalent of fair use allowed them to scrap titles for free. The French competition regulator had to intervene to force Google to go negociate. You can't negociate in good faith with a monopoly like Google. As the USA has apparently decided it won't apply its antitrust law in order to protect the international competitiveness of its abusive companies, obviously Europe will have to rein them in.
  - PoignardAzur 6y ago
    Something that is missing in those discussions about Google's monopoly position is that monopoly power doesn't matter that much here because absolutely no content platform would agree to the terms Google are being strongarmed into. Google doesn't want it. Bing wouldn't accept it. DuckDuckGo wouldn't accept it. Qwant probably wouldn't, for that matter. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and HN wouldn't (in fact, Reddit actively lobbied against the EUCD). The publishers went after Google because it's both the biggest mark and also the most unpopular. If they wanted to be principled, they'd apply the same law to Bing, Facebook, Reddit, etc. Except they won't, because Bing, Facebook and Reddit would simply remove any links to French news sites, and they would be hard pressed to make a case for monopoly power when every single content platform reacts the same way.

by asar 6y ago

qsort 6y ago

It's definitely normal, and massively hypocritical on the news sites' part. If they didn't want their content to be indexed by search results, they could ask Google to remove it, but obviously they want to have their cake and eat it too. This is just "Europe trying to somehow regulate big tech chapter #N-plus-one", and while I do actually sympathize with the broader goal, news companies of all people complaining about Google don't deserve any compassion whatsoever.

anon98356 6y ago
Why not? Google set itself up effectively as a gatekeeper to their content (whether by design or not that is the current situation) then completely gutted their primary revenue stream. Also, the major driver of this news is Google's attempts to get Australia to drop legislation. Australia is about as far away from Europe as you can get
- qsort 6y ago
  > Google set itself up effectively as a gatekeeper to their content This isn't a fair characterization. They want their content to be indexed by Google, and furthermore most of those entities have separate distribution channels (television networks, print newspapers, etc.) that Google can't touch. Most people don't want to buy newspapers or watch news channels, but frankly they are absolutely correct, because 99% of that is freaking garbage no better than your average Facebook group. > Australia s/Europe/politicians-worldwide/g My point wasn't about Europe in particular (just observing that this kind of move, for better or for worse, is more popular in the EU). Again, I do agree that we should do something about Google & friends, but this piece of legislation is the classical politician's fallacy: we should do something, this is something, hence this is good.
  - anon98356 6y ago
    I think it is a fair characterisation. They want their content on Google because if they don't then it won't be seen. I'm not saying this was a deliberate strategy by Google but it is the reality. I would argue most people don't want to buy newspapers because we have created an expectation that content should be free. As to the quality of the content, a) that's subjective and b) it can be seen as natural evolution of an industry whose income source has been decimated by Google/Facebook. It's a lot cheaper to produce what you (and I do as well, to be fair) consider garbage than to produce the quality content we would like to see coming from newspapers.
    - alisonkisk 6y ago
      Are you saying that if Google doesn't have News (like in Spain), that people will just stop reading the news at all? If so, news obviously is t very important, since there are many ways to find news, including searching for "news site" on Google!
jariel 6y ago
The problem here is that Google is a monopoly. It's like if there were a single supermarket chain and they refused to carry a product. Oh well. Customers don't really like it, but in the grand scheme the supermarket doesn't care. There are also real issues about value creation and value capture in economies. Some places are good at one and not the other. Google depends on 'the content of the world' being given to them for free, they'd be nothing without it, by being a 'single point of access' it gives them a lot of power. So free market arguments apply, but it's still more complicated.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  www.bing.com/news
- pb7 6y ago
  Monopoly doesn't mean "company I don't like". There is absolutely nothing stopping you from searching for news on another search engine. Even more importantly, there is even less stopping you from going directly to your favorite news site.
  - jariel 6y ago
    Neither of your examples illustrate the nature of monopoly, even by technical definition. There are basically zero markets in which there is one completely dominant player due to the nature of 'product quality' alone, there are always external factors or even natural artifacts of the system that facilitate a dominant player. For the same reason that YC companies don't go ahead and just compete with airliner manufacturers such as Boeing whereupon the only competition is derived from massive, state-backed players - it is not possible to complete with Google today. The barriers to entry towards building a great search engine are likely more insurmountable than even those for airline carriers, the notion that some entity with the 'right stuff' could go ahead and do it is laughable at face value. Compounded with the fact that Google has entrenched and most likely anti-competitive distribution to market via Android, Chrome - the argument becomes moot. So first, we need to separate Android, Chrome and Google at very least, and then ensure that access to browsing technologies is on a truly level playing field. That would be a good start. At this point, frankly, many other browser technologies - even those materially inferior would start to come to the fore - which is probably illustrative of where the 'true power' of Google comes from, i.e. more from distribution dominance than from actual search tech. While we are at it we can legislate grounds for app competition, platform openness, personal data ownership and the rules concerning the objective self-regulation of social media companies. At the same time, we shouldn't leave the 'sleeping giant' MS Windows distribution monopoly out of our sights either. Google has been a barrier to progress for almost a decade now, they are just another Oracle but with pink and green hair.
throwaway2245 6y ago
> If they didn't want their content to be indexed by search results, they could ask Google to remove it, You're describing a classic prisoner's dilemma. That is, it's in the interest of the news industry as a whole to not list their content for free, but if individual news companies do that, they will lose out relative to the alternative, so every individual news company is trapped in a situation they don't prefer. Google set this prisoner's dilemma to their advantage, using their position as a monopoly power to create it. It's reasonable, then, for the EU and the news industry to seek to remove Google's monopoly advantages.
- qsort 6y ago
  No, this is not the prisoner's dilemma, because the parties can communicate and are not bound to the original decision. What you're suggesting is that the news companies form a cartel. > It's reasonable, then, for the EU and the news industry to seek to remove Google's monopoly advantages. Yes, it is. But this legislation does nothing to attempt to break Google's monopoly, while at the same time granting very weird and very specific privileges to the very rich, very well-connected, very corrupt news company owners. Google is absolutely a monopoly and is absolutely abusing that position. We should stop the monopoly situation, not introduce very weird stuff that just so happens to favor people with no reasonable claims whatsoever except "I'm friends with the regulator".
  - throwaway2245 6y ago
    > ...granting very weird and very specific privileges to the very rich, very well-connected, very corrupt... I agree - and this solution has been agreed by Google because it suits their interests. They now get to collude with other powerful actors without having to worry about the less powerful (and have set this as an available precedent across the EU). I would find it more satisfying if Australia called Google's bluff and told them where to go.
  - majewsky 6y ago
    > No, this is not the prisoner's dilemma, because the parties can communicate and are not bound to the original decision. What you're suggesting is that the news companies form a cartel. The second sentence disproves the first. It's effectively a prisoner's dilemma because communication between the players is effectively infeasible through illegality.
908B64B197 6y ago
If you can't innovate it's time to regulate!
brmgb 6y ago
> If they didn't want their content to be indexed by search results, they could ask Google to remove it No, they can't. The first answer to the Google issue from the French press was sensible. Individualy they know their content is worth money but individualy they are weak so they try to form a syndicate to negociate with Google in a pay-or-nothing position. But Google argued the French equivalent of fair use allowed them to scrap titles for free. The French competition regulator had to intervene to force Google to go negociate. You can't negociate in good faith with a monopoly like Google. As the USA has apparently decided it won't apply its antitrust law in order to protect the international competitiveness of its abusive companies, obviously Europe will have to rein them in.
- PoignardAzur 6y ago
  Something that is missing in those discussions about Google's monopoly position is that monopoly power doesn't matter that much here because absolutely no content platform would agree to the terms Google are being strongarmed into. Google doesn't want it. Bing wouldn't accept it. DuckDuckGo wouldn't accept it. Qwant probably wouldn't, for that matter. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and HN wouldn't (in fact, Reddit actively lobbied against the EUCD). The publishers went after Google because it's both the biggest mark and also the most unpopular. If they wanted to be principled, they'd apply the same law to Bing, Facebook, Reddit, etc. Except they won't, because Bing, Facebook and Reddit would simply remove any links to French news sites, and they would be hard pressed to make a case for monopoly power when every single content platform reacts the same way.