5 ms·

> They get extra visibility + traffic clicks from Google -- but also want to be paid for it?!? Visibility is not a meaningful "reward" for established European

by johbjo 5y ago

> They get extra visibility + traffic clicks from Google -- but also want to be paid for it?!? Visibility is not a meaningful "reward" for established European newspapers (they are not unknown hobby bloggers.) The issue is who is capturing revenue from the work. The newspapers make money from people browsing their site (long ad exposure) or paying for subscriptions. The news model: journalists discover "news facts" which they make into "news stories" that can hold reader attention. If Google collects all "news facts" in one place with their own ads, they are benefiting from journalists while undercutting the newspapers.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bla3 5y ago
If the headline being the valuable content is true, it suggests there could be a business that's like a newspaper that only publishes headlines without articles. I'm not saying this to refute your comment! This might actually be a valid idea.
- saalweachter 5y ago
  I believe that would be Fark, or maybe Twitter.
  - blunte 5y ago
    Yes, also like Twitter in that the headline/tweet without substance is adequate for most people these days. This is one reason why social media has been such a successful part of political disinformation campaigns.
jasode 5y ago
>The news model: journalists discover "news facts" which they make into "news stories" that can hold reader attention. >If Google collects all "news facts" in one place with their own ads, they are benefiting from journalists while undercutting the newspapers. If "news facts" is the framework for the proposed logic of compensation, it is being applied inconsistently. Consider the final result of 2 professional soccer teams playing a game: FC Barcelona beats Real Madrid 2-1. The "facts" were generated by the players + the referee + the official scorekeeper, etc. A French newspaper reports on it: https://www.leparisien.fr/sports/football/direct-suivez-le-clasico-de-liga-real-madrid-fc-barcelone-10-04-2021-FWLQJIVGYNGENN3MHS6D7B4B6M.php https://www.leparisien.fr/sports/football/direct-suivez-le-c... Using first principles of "facts generation", should the French newspaper be required by Spain to share a portion of the ad revenue to each soccer team and La Liga league? If no, why is that not hypocritical? Same as Ryanair announces a new airline route and French newspapers report it. It doesn't mean French publishers should pay some of their ad money to Ryanair. Likewise, if Google issues a press release saying the next "Pixel 7 phone will be available October 2021" and French newspapers report that fact, it doesn't mean they should owe Google money just because Google produced that headline. Newspapers have traditionally benefited from headlines being generated by the entire world and they get ad money for it without paying the sources of those headlines. If Google did include article snippets beyond the headlines, that seemed like a reasonable threshold to pay license fees to French newspapers. Otherwise, a pure headline display is a symbiotic relationship similar to the symbioses newspapers enjoyed with sports reporting, Hollywood celebrities, corporate press release announcements, etc. The newspapers want Google to pay for something the newspapers themselves don't want to pay for.
- johnday 5y ago
  Perhaps under this logic Google should start their own newspaper, which reports the publication of every news story on every French news website. That way they are simply reporting the facts, and are no longer liable for copyright infringement!
ahtihn 5y ago
If visibility is not a meaningful reward, then I guess Google should just blacklist these news sites from the search engine. Somehow I have the feeling that news sites wouldn't be happy with that, I wonder why...
oytis 5y ago
> Visibility is not a meaningful "reward" for established European newspapers Why? There are two ways how I would land on a newspaper's page. One is if I read them regularly, then I just go to their website directly to check what's new. That's what their loyal audience does, and Google doesn't affect that. Another one is that I'm googling for news about a specific event or specific person - then I go to whatever pages Google shows me. That's how newspaper expand their loyal audience.
- danielrpa 5y ago
  It appears that they don't want it and prefer other terms - pay me and you can use my headlines. We cannot force newspapers to accept Google's headlines-for-clicks system against their will.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    No, they want the audience google brings. They just want a share of googles profits, riding the anti google sentiment, google got for other things. Classic politics.
  - jstanley 5y ago
    Yes, we can, that's what fair use is all about.
  - pc86 5y ago
    Can we force them to accept the reality of how the internet has operated for the last 4+ decades, or are they exempt from that as well?
    - oytis 5y ago
      I could be convinced that demanding to be removed from Google index is legitimate. But it's also not what newspaper want: they want to be indexed and be paid for it, no way for Google not to take the deal. That's state-supported extortion to me.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
nindalf 5y ago
And yet the same newspapers will protest vigorously is Google removes news completely. Google can opt out of this so called benefit without losing much. But newspapers desperately need this traffic. Your theory that Google is benefiting more from this arrangement than the newspapers themselves isn’t true.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > And yet the same newspapers will protest vigorously is Google removes news completely. Google can opt out of this so called benefit without losing much. But newspapers desperately need this traffic. Google can't actually. Google has been ordered to display links and snippets from French newspapers and is explicitly not allowed to remove French newspapers from their results.
  - nindalf 5y ago
    That’s my point. The French newspapers need Google for traffic. And so they (unofficially) partnered with the French government and courts to complete the shakedown. The courts force the use of snippets, then the government says “well you’re using these snippets so you must pay for them”.
  - egeozcan 5y ago
    So, in practice, Google has been ordered to pay. As a European, I can't sympathize with the French newspapers. Perhaps they can disable the news part completely when viewed from France or does this also include search results?
bserge 5y ago
But only using links seems OK - people will go to the websites and see their ads...
threatofrain 5y ago
When NYT references the work of The Intercept, as they have done recently, ought the NYT pay The Intercept? [1] And if I summarize the facts of a French news article, ought Google be disallowed from collecting my facts? [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/12/climate/epa-pfas-fracking-forever-chemicals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/12/climate/epa-pfas-fracking...
tynpeddler 5y ago
> Visibility is not a meaningful "reward" for established European newspapers This is prima facie false. Google is not permitted to simply deindex these papers. The newspapers are demanding to be indexed and referenced, and be paid for it. It's pretty clear here that Google is providing a service to the papers, not the other way around.
- avmich 5y ago
  "...demanding... and be paid for it" I'm suspecting it's more important that newspapers are to receive money (for services) than that they demanding to be indexed (requesting service). It's newspapers providing service to Google here, in the form of interesting data which attracts viewers.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    Google was happy to refuse the "services" these newspapers were offering, by removing them from their index. The newspapers balked at that—because they get more value from being included in Google's index than they stand to "lose" from having Google show visitors just the headlines with links to the original sites. So they brought the government in to force Google to purchase the newspapers' services whether they wanted them or not.

by johbjo 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bla3 5y ago

If the headline being the valuable content is true, it suggests there could be a business that's like a newspaper that only publishes headlines without articles. I'm not saying this to refute your comment! This might actually be a valid idea.

saalweachter 5y ago
I believe that would be Fark, or maybe Twitter.
- blunte 5y ago
  Yes, also like Twitter in that the headline/tweet without substance is adequate for most people these days. This is one reason why social media has been such a successful part of political disinformation campaigns.

jasode 5y ago

>The news model: journalists discover "news facts" which they make into "news stories" that can hold reader attention. >If Google collects all "news facts" in one place with their own ads, they are benefiting from journalists while undercutting the newspapers. If "news facts" is the framework for the proposed logic of compensation, it is being applied inconsistently. Consider the final result of 2 professional soccer teams playing a game: FC Barcelona beats Real Madrid 2-1. The "facts" were generated by the players + the referee + the official scorekeeper, etc. A French newspaper reports on it: https://www.leparisien.fr/sports/football/direct-suivez-le-clasico-de-liga-real-madrid-fc-barcelone-10-04-2021-FWLQJIVGYNGENN3MHS6D7B4B6M.php https://www.leparisien.fr/sports/football/direct-suivez-le-c... Using first principles of "facts generation", should the French newspaper be required by Spain to share a portion of the ad revenue to each soccer team and La Liga league? If no, why is that not hypocritical? Same as Ryanair announces a new airline route and French newspapers report it. It doesn't mean French publishers should pay some of their ad money to Ryanair. Likewise, if Google issues a press release saying the next "Pixel 7 phone will be available October 2021" and French newspapers report that fact, it doesn't mean they should owe Google money just because Google produced that headline. Newspapers have traditionally benefited from headlines being generated by the entire world and they get ad money for it without paying the sources of those headlines. If Google did include article snippets beyond the headlines, that seemed like a reasonable threshold to pay license fees to French newspapers. Otherwise, a pure headline display is a symbiotic relationship similar to the symbioses newspapers enjoyed with sports reporting, Hollywood celebrities, corporate press release announcements, etc. The newspapers want Google to pay for something the newspapers themselves don't want to pay for.

johnday 5y ago
Perhaps under this logic Google should start their own newspaper, which reports the publication of every news story on every French news website. That way they are simply reporting the facts, and are no longer liable for copyright infringement!

ahtihn 5y ago

If visibility is not a meaningful reward, then I guess Google should just blacklist these news sites from the search engine. Somehow I have the feeling that news sites wouldn't be happy with that, I wonder why...

oytis 5y ago

> Visibility is not a meaningful "reward" for established European newspapers Why? There are two ways how I would land on a newspaper's page. One is if I read them regularly, then I just go to their website directly to check what's new. That's what their loyal audience does, and Google doesn't affect that. Another one is that I'm googling for news about a specific event or specific person - then I go to whatever pages Google shows me. That's how newspaper expand their loyal audience.

danielrpa 5y ago
It appears that they don't want it and prefer other terms - pay me and you can use my headlines. We cannot force newspapers to accept Google's headlines-for-clicks system against their will.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  No, they want the audience google brings. They just want a share of googles profits, riding the anti google sentiment, google got for other things. Classic politics.
- jstanley 5y ago
  Yes, we can, that's what fair use is all about.
- pc86 5y ago
  Can we force them to accept the reality of how the internet has operated for the last 4+ decades, or are they exempt from that as well?
  - oytis 5y ago
    I could be convinced that demanding to be removed from Google index is legitimate. But it's also not what newspaper want: they want to be indexed and be paid for it, no way for Google not to take the deal. That's state-supported extortion to me.
- shkkmo 5y ago

nindalf 5y ago

And yet the same newspapers will protest vigorously is Google removes news completely. Google can opt out of this so called benefit without losing much. But newspapers desperately need this traffic. Your theory that Google is benefiting more from this arrangement than the newspapers themselves isn’t true.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
shkkmo 5y ago
> And yet the same newspapers will protest vigorously is Google removes news completely. Google can opt out of this so called benefit without losing much. But newspapers desperately need this traffic. Google can't actually. Google has been ordered to display links and snippets from French newspapers and is explicitly not allowed to remove French newspapers from their results.
- nindalf 5y ago
  That’s my point. The French newspapers need Google for traffic. And so they (unofficially) partnered with the French government and courts to complete the shakedown. The courts force the use of snippets, then the government says “well you’re using these snippets so you must pay for them”.
- egeozcan 5y ago
  So, in practice, Google has been ordered to pay. As a European, I can't sympathize with the French newspapers. Perhaps they can disable the news part completely when viewed from France or does this also include search results?

bserge 5y ago

But only using links seems OK - people will go to the websites and see their ads...

threatofrain 5y ago

When NYT references the work of The Intercept, as they have done recently, ought the NYT pay The Intercept? [1] And if I summarize the facts of a French news article, ought Google be disallowed from collecting my facts? [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/12/climate/epa-pfas-fracking-forever-chemicals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/12/climate/epa-pfas-fracking...

tynpeddler 5y ago

> Visibility is not a meaningful "reward" for established European newspapers This is prima facie false. Google is not permitted to simply deindex these papers. The newspapers are demanding to be indexed and referenced, and be paid for it. It's pretty clear here that Google is providing a service to the papers, not the other way around.

avmich 5y ago
"...demanding... and be paid for it" I'm suspecting it's more important that newspapers are to receive money (for services) than that they demanding to be indexed (requesting service). It's newspapers providing service to Google here, in the form of interesting data which attracts viewers.
- nybble41 5y ago
  Google was happy to refuse the "services" these newspapers were offering, by removing them from their index. The newspapers balked at that—because they get more value from being included in Google's index than they stand to "lose" from having Google show visitors just the headlines with links to the original sites. So they brought the government in to force Google to purchase the newspapers' services whether they wanted them or not.