4 ms·
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
by 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 agoShould 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 agoGood 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 agoMost 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 agoNews 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 agoIf 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.