5 ms·

The issue is considered to be an attack on open web, because for the first time there will be a national law forcing someone to pay for posting a link. The abil

The issue is considered to be an attack on open web, because for the first time there will be a national law forcing someone to pay for posting a link. The ability to freely post links is the basis of open web.

prox 6y ago
The difference is the value of the link. As someone who does seo, a link certainly can be ascribed a price. Facebook still isn’t even close or near being part of the open web. It’s a convenience aggregator if anything, and that’s where the difference lies. And Facebook benefits freely from something it did not produce.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  Should Hacker News have to pay money to link to SMH? Answering "Yes" is an attack on the fundamentals of the internet. > And Facebook benefits freely from something it did not produce. Arguably the news publications get at least as much value out of news links being shared on Facebook as Facebook gets, if not more. Look I get it - we all hate Facebook. Facebook and Google and Amazon should face more regulation, but this is not it. Lets actually aknowledge that the government is forcing websites to pay for linking to a site. Links that, in Facebook's case, the publishers voluntarily submit and post!
  - prox 6y ago
    Good point you’re making. There seems to be a symbiotic relationship really. News producers do get the short end of the stick though when it comes down to it. I also think this particular government intervention is not helpful. But something akin to a shared revenue system might be an option?
    - rosege 6y ago
      Most articles are paywalled so the publishers get subscription and ad money.
  - pydry 6y ago
    >Should Hacker News have to pay money to link to SMH? Why ask this? Nobody's asking them to and nobody will.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- postingawayonhn 6y ago
  News sites are certainly welcome to tell Google not to index their sites and I'm sure Facebook would be happy to set up a similar system. The fact they don't shows that they know they receive value from these links.
  - intricatedetail 6y ago
    If you have mates in government it's easy to setup such money grab. I wonder what they are going to do next. For example coffee makers will demand a share of ones salary? (After drinking coffee you are more productive and make more money, it's only right to share with coffee producers % of your earnings, right? Then you will say you'll stop buying coffee and government will call you being anti Australian and will force you to drink coffee. It is that bad.
pydry 6y ago
The law is forcing two walled gardens to pay - because they are walled gardens. That's exactly the opposite. If they never reached a deal users would seek news not on Facebook or google but elsewhere - perhaps on the open web.
- fatsdomino001 6y ago
  no they are forcing all websites to pay. There's just a delay between the 2 they've targeted currently and the millions yet to be targeted.
- jefftk 6y ago
  > forcing two walled gardens to pay - because they are walled gardens How is Google search a walled garden? You search, see a link to a news story, click on it, leave Google. (Disclosure: I work at Google, speaking only for myself)
  - clouddrover 6y ago
    Because you increasingly don't leave Google: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescommunicationscouncil/2020/01/09/three-effective-strategies-to-combat-zero-click-searches-on-google/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescommunicationscouncil/202... https://sparktoro.com/blog/less-than-half-of-google-searches-now-result-in-a-click/ https://sparktoro.com/blog/less-than-half-of-google-searches... When users stay on the Google and Facebook platforms then news media companies are for practical purposes forced to have a presence on both, but that also means Google and Facebook will capture most of the advertising revenue and the news media companies producing the actual content will see less. Hence the regulation. Google has already done deals with various news media companies in Australia. Facebook is in the process of doing the same. The Australian government got what they wanted.

prox 6y ago

The difference is the value of the link. As someone who does seo, a link certainly can be ascribed a price. Facebook still isn’t even close or near being part of the open web. It’s a convenience aggregator if anything, and that’s where the difference lies. And Facebook benefits freely from something it did not produce.

madeofpalk 6y ago
Should Hacker News have to pay money to link to SMH? Answering "Yes" is an attack on the fundamentals of the internet. > And Facebook benefits freely from something it did not produce. Arguably the news publications get at least as much value out of news links being shared on Facebook as Facebook gets, if not more. Look I get it - we all hate Facebook. Facebook and Google and Amazon should face more regulation, but this is not it. Lets actually aknowledge that the government is forcing websites to pay for linking to a site. Links that, in Facebook's case, the publishers voluntarily submit and post!
- prox 6y ago
  Good point you’re making. There seems to be a symbiotic relationship really. News producers do get the short end of the stick though when it comes down to it. I also think this particular government intervention is not helpful. But something akin to a shared revenue system might be an option?
  - rosege 6y ago
    Most articles are paywalled so the publishers get subscription and ad money.
- pydry 6y ago
  >Should Hacker News have to pay money to link to SMH? Why ask this? Nobody's asking them to and nobody will.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
postingawayonhn 6y ago
News sites are certainly welcome to tell Google not to index their sites and I'm sure Facebook would be happy to set up a similar system. The fact they don't shows that they know they receive value from these links.
- intricatedetail 6y ago
  If you have mates in government it's easy to setup such money grab. I wonder what they are going to do next. For example coffee makers will demand a share of ones salary? (After drinking coffee you are more productive and make more money, it's only right to share with coffee producers % of your earnings, right? Then you will say you'll stop buying coffee and government will call you being anti Australian and will force you to drink coffee. It is that bad.

pydry 6y ago

The law is forcing two walled gardens to pay - because they are walled gardens. That's exactly the opposite. If they never reached a deal users would seek news not on Facebook or google but elsewhere - perhaps on the open web.

fatsdomino001 6y ago
no they are forcing all websites to pay. There's just a delay between the 2 they've targeted currently and the millions yet to be targeted.
jefftk 6y ago
> forcing two walled gardens to pay - because they are walled gardens How is Google search a walled garden? You search, see a link to a news story, click on it, leave Google. (Disclosure: I work at Google, speaking only for myself)
- clouddrover 6y ago
  Because you increasingly don't leave Google: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescommunicationscouncil/2020/01/09/three-effective-strategies-to-combat-zero-click-searches-on-google/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescommunicationscouncil/202... https://sparktoro.com/blog/less-than-half-of-google-searches-now-result-in-a-click/ https://sparktoro.com/blog/less-than-half-of-google-searches... When users stay on the Google and Facebook platforms then news media companies are for practical purposes forced to have a presence on both, but that also means Google and Facebook will capture most of the advertising revenue and the news media companies producing the actual content will see less. Hence the regulation. Google has already done deals with various news media companies in Australia. Facebook is in the process of doing the same. The Australian government got what they wanted.