4 ms·

I can understand if people hold the opinion google shouldn't have to pay for that and that market preasure for news organizations is the organizations problem a

by ketzu 6y ago

I can understand if people hold the opinion google shouldn't have to pay for that and that market preasure for news organizations is the organizations problem and not that of google. I have a hard time following the idea that google should use its dominant market position to force others into submission. This sounds distinctively worse than convincing a democratically elected government that you need protection (e.g., because the market is failing to some degree and your industry is important for the country in some form). This wouldn't be a good result for consumers either. Google is not an underdog screwed by some corrupt government and is just too honest and noble to bribe the law away or invest in any form of lobbying.

bluecalm 6y ago
The problem with convincing a democratically elected government is that existing players can use their power (think of the jobs!) to rescue their bad business and thus preventing better alternatives from coming up. I for one think news industry is worse than worthless. No news would be better than current news. I think there is a need for information but news is selectively picked information turned into entertainment. I don't think we are better informed nor in any other way better off because of this junk. Let it fail and see what comes up next.
sidibe 6y ago
> I have a hard time following the idea that google should use its dominant market position to force others into submission If it's just a case of legally avoiding the new law, it's not a case of using "its dominant position to force others into submission." If they remove the smallest level of what makes them noncompliant, which in this case might be removing search outright (because otherwise they are supposed to link to and pay the news sites), to me that's fair game and not monopolistic. If they threaten to do something to unrelated things like Gmail or GCP, that's not OK.

by ketzu 6y ago

bluecalm 6y ago

The problem with convincing a democratically elected government is that existing players can use their power (think of the jobs!) to rescue their bad business and thus preventing better alternatives from coming up. I for one think news industry is worse than worthless. No news would be better than current news. I think there is a need for information but news is selectively picked information turned into entertainment. I don't think we are better informed nor in any other way better off because of this junk. Let it fail and see what comes up next.

sidibe 6y ago

> I have a hard time following the idea that google should use its dominant market position to force others into submission If it's just a case of legally avoiding the new law, it's not a case of using "its dominant position to force others into submission." If they remove the smallest level of what makes them noncompliant, which in this case might be removing search outright (because otherwise they are supposed to link to and pay the news sites), to me that's fair game and not monopolistic. If they threaten to do something to unrelated things like Gmail or GCP, that's not OK.