5 ms·

> By setting up this bait and switch, you hurt your own paywall - if the search engine can get a full copy, so can I. I don’t get this. They do whatever they w

by hk__2 4y ago

> By setting up this bait and switch, you hurt your own paywall - if the search engine can get a full copy, so can I. I don’t get this. They do whatever they want with their content. Editors give free book copies to journalists; that doesn’t gives you the right to have one as well.

vorpalhex 4y ago
You can't give a free copy to the local library to drive sales and be upset when people borrow the book and read it from the local library.
- kube-system 4y ago
  And you cannot take a book from someone who asks for money, refuse to pay, and say "but it's free at the library!" The difference is consent.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    But we are literally getting the copy here from the library because the author gave the book to the library. Google is obeying robots.txt. Google caches a copy of what you serve and gives that out. That is part of the deal.
- hk__2 4y ago
  > You can't give a free copy to the local library to drive sales Nobody does that. The comparison doesn’t hold.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    You are doing that when you let Google past the paywall.
stickfigure 4y ago
...and if they post their content to the public, the public can read it. Giving content to journalists is not the same as giving your content to Google to index in their search engine and caches. The later is not private.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kube-system 4y ago
  Journalists post quotes and snippets, just as Google does. Not that it matters. Just because I gave something to someone else for free, doesn't mean I have to give it to you. The idea that a single public exhibition of a work is enough to invalidate any future sale of that work is totally silly. Are you gonna bust out the window of a Barnes & Noble because libraries exist?
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    Google reproduces the entire page it searches. This is not some oversight or hidden secret - it is how it works.
- hk__2 4y ago
  > Giving content to journalists is not the same as giving your content to Google to index in their search engine and caches. It’s exactly the same. You give access to an entity that serves to promote your content. The fact that Google’s cache is accessible is a technical implementation detail; Google could remove access to that cache tomorrow and that wouldn’t change anything.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    > The fact that Google’s cache is accessible is a technical implementation detail; It's intentional to fix the kind of abusive behavior you are engaging in. If you serve content to a search engine, that search engine will reproduce the content. Search engines are for publically available content. If you want to advertise, pay for it.

by hk__2 4y ago

vorpalhex 4y ago

You can't give a free copy to the local library to drive sales and be upset when people borrow the book and read it from the local library.

kube-system 4y ago
And you cannot take a book from someone who asks for money, refuse to pay, and say "but it's free at the library!" The difference is consent.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  But we are literally getting the copy here from the library because the author gave the book to the library. Google is obeying robots.txt. Google caches a copy of what you serve and gives that out. That is part of the deal.
hk__2 4y ago
> You can't give a free copy to the local library to drive sales Nobody does that. The comparison doesn’t hold.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  You are doing that when you let Google past the paywall.

stickfigure 4y ago

...and if they post their content to the public, the public can read it. Giving content to journalists is not the same as giving your content to Google to index in their search engine and caches. The later is not private.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kube-system 4y ago
Journalists post quotes and snippets, just as Google does. Not that it matters. Just because I gave something to someone else for free, doesn't mean I have to give it to you. The idea that a single public exhibition of a work is enough to invalidate any future sale of that work is totally silly. Are you gonna bust out the window of a Barnes & Noble because libraries exist?
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Google reproduces the entire page it searches. This is not some oversight or hidden secret - it is how it works.
hk__2 4y ago
> Giving content to journalists is not the same as giving your content to Google to index in their search engine and caches. It’s exactly the same. You give access to an entity that serves to promote your content. The fact that Google’s cache is accessible is a technical implementation detail; Google could remove access to that cache tomorrow and that wouldn’t change anything.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  > The fact that Google’s cache is accessible is a technical implementation detail; It's intentional to fix the kind of abusive behavior you are engaging in. If you serve content to a search engine, that search engine will reproduce the content. Search engines are for publically available content. If you want to advertise, pay for it.