4 ms·

The messaging on this tech vs news publishers in Australia is pretty intense. Any site that doesn't want google to index a page can add: <meta name="robots"

The messaging on this tech vs news publishers in Australia is pretty intense. Any site that doesn't want google to index a page can add: <meta name="robots" content="noindex"/> to the page and it will not be listed when someone searches Google (as far as I know), thereby preventing all the alleged stealing/siphoning/etc of revenue/profits from news sites. Am I wrong here? If the above is true, what's really going on here is that content producers got together and said, "if you don't pay all of us, we'll stop you from linking to all of us," and it was worth it to Google to pay. Clearly it wasn't worth it to Facebook.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
Any single site doesn’t have the power to change Facebook. Your suggestion is equivalent to “no child is forced to work in the mines. If they don’t need the money, they can choose to go to school instead”
- djoldman 6y ago
  It seems to me that Facebook putting an anchor link to a website on a facebook page is materially different from child labor. Should sites be allowed to link to other sites? Also, every website has the power to change Google: just put the noindex tag on your pages and you'll effectively prevent links from Google to your website. For facebook, it's trickier. One thing that might work is sharing something from your website on Facebook and then reporting it as against community standards. It seems like there are a zillion pages of people trying to get their sites UNblocked from Facebook- the cause of which frequently seems to be people flagging content.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
    These links and snippets are mutually beneficial. The argument is if the “natural” allocation of benefits is fair and the best possible for society.
    - djoldman 6y ago
      Interesting take. Are you saying that laws should exist to disallow linking between two websites based on "allocation of benefits"? If so, how does one determine what the balance of benefits are?
      - IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
        No, of course I’m not saying whatever silly extrapolation you put into my mouth. I‘m saying there is a complex interaction between content creators and aggregators, and a power imbalance currently favoring the aggregator. I’m also saying that high-quality journalism is a necessary condition for a functioning democracy. Combining these thoughts leads to the conclusion that it may not actually be the worst idea to reverse some of the changes the market for news has seen in the last few years. I have no idea if Australia’s policy will end up working. But the collective pearl clutching and either pretend or real ignorance with regard to the motivation for this law in the comments here is just breathtaking.
AniseAbyss 6y ago
You can Google Netflix and still have to pay for it.
vineyardmike 6y ago
> Any site that doesn't want google to index a page... They want to be indexed, they just also want to get paid. The root issue is that media companies no longer make $$$ from ads, instead google does and they want that money back. This is "silly" law to accomplish that goal.
- djoldman 6y ago
  I think this is the correct interpretation. Market forces at work.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  > The root issue is that media companies no longer make $$$ from ads Ding ding ding. This has always been about newspapers no longer being the best place to advertise. It's old media trying to hold onto the little power they have, and honestly the only reason they haven't been dismissed entirely is because as a society, we still value journalism, but the likes of Murdoch are now abusing that fact that entrench by lobbying for these outlandish laws.
- erklik 6y ago
  > The root issue is that media companies no longer make $$$ from ads, instead google does and they want that money back. This is "silly" law to accomplish that goal. The problem is that Media companies didn't lose their revenue to Google. They lost it to other more specalised websites i.e. Seek, Craiglists, Gumtree and so on.
  - shard972 6y ago
    This is 100% not true whatsoever. These sites barely make money and are being mostly eaten by FB/Google anyway.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

Any single site doesn’t have the power to change Facebook. Your suggestion is equivalent to “no child is forced to work in the mines. If they don’t need the money, they can choose to go to school instead”

djoldman 6y ago
It seems to me that Facebook putting an anchor link to a website on a facebook page is materially different from child labor. Should sites be allowed to link to other sites? Also, every website has the power to change Google: just put the noindex tag on your pages and you'll effectively prevent links from Google to your website. For facebook, it's trickier. One thing that might work is sharing something from your website on Facebook and then reporting it as against community standards. It seems like there are a zillion pages of people trying to get their sites UNblocked from Facebook- the cause of which frequently seems to be people flagging content.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  These links and snippets are mutually beneficial. The argument is if the “natural” allocation of benefits is fair and the best possible for society.
  - djoldman 6y ago
    Interesting take. Are you saying that laws should exist to disallow linking between two websites based on "allocation of benefits"? If so, how does one determine what the balance of benefits are?
    - IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
      No, of course I’m not saying whatever silly extrapolation you put into my mouth. I‘m saying there is a complex interaction between content creators and aggregators, and a power imbalance currently favoring the aggregator. I’m also saying that high-quality journalism is a necessary condition for a functioning democracy. Combining these thoughts leads to the conclusion that it may not actually be the worst idea to reverse some of the changes the market for news has seen in the last few years. I have no idea if Australia’s policy will end up working. But the collective pearl clutching and either pretend or real ignorance with regard to the motivation for this law in the comments here is just breathtaking.

AniseAbyss 6y ago

You can Google Netflix and still have to pay for it.

vineyardmike 6y ago

> Any site that doesn't want google to index a page... They want to be indexed, they just also want to get paid. The root issue is that media companies no longer make $$$ from ads, instead google does and they want that money back. This is "silly" law to accomplish that goal.

djoldman 6y ago
I think this is the correct interpretation. Market forces at work.
ehsankia 6y ago
> The root issue is that media companies no longer make $$$ from ads Ding ding ding. This has always been about newspapers no longer being the best place to advertise. It's old media trying to hold onto the little power they have, and honestly the only reason they haven't been dismissed entirely is because as a society, we still value journalism, but the likes of Murdoch are now abusing that fact that entrench by lobbying for these outlandish laws.
erklik 6y ago
> The root issue is that media companies no longer make $$$ from ads, instead google does and they want that money back. This is "silly" law to accomplish that goal. The problem is that Media companies didn't lose their revenue to Google. They lost it to other more specalised websites i.e. Seek, Craiglists, Gumtree and so on.
- shard972 6y ago
  This is 100% not true whatsoever. These sites barely make money and are being mostly eaten by FB/Google anyway.