5 ms·

> Because people usually don't stop to read articles in full, this would also not drive any traffic to the original publishers' websites. Maybe the fix isn't t

> Because people usually don't stop to read articles in full, this would also not drive any traffic to the original publishers' websites. Maybe the fix isn't to go hustle some rent out of "evil foreign tech giants" but simply to... write articles people want to read!

manuelabeledo 3y ago
There are several issues with that approach. First, it doesn't address the problem, because the problem is that people don't want to read articles. It happens everywhere, even in HN you could often see people commenting on headlines instead of articles. Second, news are supposed to be informative, not appealing. Writing just the things people want to see is how tabloids work. Third, you got it backwards. Google is feeding from the news publishers, not the other way around. Without these, Google would have no news contents. In contrast, other sites like YouTube or Instagram actually host and pay for content. In essence, Google is saying that they don't need to pay for news content they post in their website, but they will pay for it if it is posted as a video.
- 908B64B197 3y ago
  > the problem is that people don't want to read articles. If the consumer doesn't want a product... it's somewhat the consumer's fault? "but they don't want cigarettes sir! Maybe they just don't understand cigarettes..." > Third, you got it backwards. Google is feeding from the news publishers, not the other way around. Without these, Google would have no news contents. Google feeds the publishers, not the other way around. A significant portion of their traffic comes directly from Google. The other way around simply doesn't happen. Google doesn't have news content. It's a link aggregator. Honestly, they should just de-list Canadians outlet from their platform. Redirect to blogs or international outlets... Let the media companies build their own aggregator if they don't like the current ones.
  - joseph_grobbles 3y ago
    [dead]
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    > If the consumer doesn't want a product... it's somewhat the consumer's fault? One could buy a burger at McDonald's immediately, or wait for half hour in line to get a healthier and better sandwich at a shop down the road. The fact that McDonald's is more convenient, does not make it better. Consumers want to eat, and they want to read news, but most of the time they don't want all that comes attached to either. You are of the opinion that we should have newspapers that are only headlines, something easier to digest, but void of content. > Google feeds the publishers, not the other way around. A significant portion of their traffic comes directly from Google. The other way around simply doesn't happen. What do you think Google's business model is? They don't generate any content after all. Do you think they are losing money on search or news? Imagine a world where no one would want Google to index their websites, just because. The world wide web would continue working, but Google would eventually disappear, because they do not create any content themselves.
    - 908B64B197 3y ago
      > Consumers want to eat, and they want to read news, but most of the time they don't want all that comes attached to either. You are of the opinion that we should have newspapers that are only headlines, something easier to digest, but void of content Isn't it what TikTok is doing? Short form content is huge and exploding on YouTube and Instagram.
      - manuelabeledo 3y ago
        > Isn't it what TikTok is doing? Short form content is huge and exploding on YouTube and Instagram. That doesn't make it any better than either of them. You are conflating two things, needs and business. People need to be informed, and how informed a society is cannot be measured as the success of the platforms participating in that.
- tomjen3 3y ago
  You are making the assumption that people don't read the articles, but what really happens is that most articles do not show themselves to be relevant enough to read. News articles are supposed to be informative, yes, but most are not informative about something that is of value to the readers life. It used to be that browsing the headlines was enough to see if an article was relevant to the reader, but with click-bait I now need a summary for that - on HN I check the comments first, and then I read the article only if it gets referred to as good or insightful. On social media I cannot rely on the comments, so I need a summary.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    > You are making the assumption that people don't read the articles, but what really happens is that most articles do not show themselves to be relevant enough to read. If the vast majority of articles weren't relevant enough for people to read them, there would not be any interest in publishing the headlines in the first place. The fact that Google is actually trying to fight this law, instead of just removing the links, is proof that they do find them monetizable.
    - 908B64B197 3y ago
      > If the vast majority of articles weren't relevant enough for people to read them, there would not be any interest in publishing the headlines in the first place Not if the majority of the value resides in the headline. It's telling that, from the point of view of the government, Google and the media companies, the summary and the link to an article are worth more than the article itself.
      - manuelabeledo 3y ago
        > Not if the majority of the value resides in the headline. So you are telling me that Google is profiting from publishing content that is not theirs, without giving anything back in return? Because that's absolutely my point.
        3y ago

manuelabeledo 3y ago

There are several issues with that approach. First, it doesn't address the problem, because the problem is that people don't want to read articles. It happens everywhere, even in HN you could often see people commenting on headlines instead of articles. Second, news are supposed to be informative, not appealing. Writing just the things people want to see is how tabloids work. Third, you got it backwards. Google is feeding from the news publishers, not the other way around. Without these, Google would have no news contents. In contrast, other sites like YouTube or Instagram actually host and pay for content. In essence, Google is saying that they don't need to pay for news content they post in their website, but they will pay for it if it is posted as a video.

908B64B197 3y ago
> the problem is that people don't want to read articles. If the consumer doesn't want a product... it's somewhat the consumer's fault? "but they don't want cigarettes sir! Maybe they just don't understand cigarettes..." > Third, you got it backwards. Google is feeding from the news publishers, not the other way around. Without these, Google would have no news contents. Google feeds the publishers, not the other way around. A significant portion of their traffic comes directly from Google. The other way around simply doesn't happen. Google doesn't have news content. It's a link aggregator. Honestly, they should just de-list Canadians outlet from their platform. Redirect to blogs or international outlets... Let the media companies build their own aggregator if they don't like the current ones.
- joseph_grobbles 3y ago
  [dead]
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  > If the consumer doesn't want a product... it's somewhat the consumer's fault? One could buy a burger at McDonald's immediately, or wait for half hour in line to get a healthier and better sandwich at a shop down the road. The fact that McDonald's is more convenient, does not make it better. Consumers want to eat, and they want to read news, but most of the time they don't want all that comes attached to either. You are of the opinion that we should have newspapers that are only headlines, something easier to digest, but void of content. > Google feeds the publishers, not the other way around. A significant portion of their traffic comes directly from Google. The other way around simply doesn't happen. What do you think Google's business model is? They don't generate any content after all. Do you think they are losing money on search or news? Imagine a world where no one would want Google to index their websites, just because. The world wide web would continue working, but Google would eventually disappear, because they do not create any content themselves.
  - 908B64B197 3y ago
    > Consumers want to eat, and they want to read news, but most of the time they don't want all that comes attached to either. You are of the opinion that we should have newspapers that are only headlines, something easier to digest, but void of content Isn't it what TikTok is doing? Short form content is huge and exploding on YouTube and Instagram.
    - manuelabeledo 3y ago
      > Isn't it what TikTok is doing? Short form content is huge and exploding on YouTube and Instagram. That doesn't make it any better than either of them. You are conflating two things, needs and business. People need to be informed, and how informed a society is cannot be measured as the success of the platforms participating in that.
tomjen3 3y ago
You are making the assumption that people don't read the articles, but what really happens is that most articles do not show themselves to be relevant enough to read. News articles are supposed to be informative, yes, but most are not informative about something that is of value to the readers life. It used to be that browsing the headlines was enough to see if an article was relevant to the reader, but with click-bait I now need a summary for that - on HN I check the comments first, and then I read the article only if it gets referred to as good or insightful. On social media I cannot rely on the comments, so I need a summary.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  > You are making the assumption that people don't read the articles, but what really happens is that most articles do not show themselves to be relevant enough to read. If the vast majority of articles weren't relevant enough for people to read them, there would not be any interest in publishing the headlines in the first place. The fact that Google is actually trying to fight this law, instead of just removing the links, is proof that they do find them monetizable.
  - 908B64B197 3y ago
    > If the vast majority of articles weren't relevant enough for people to read them, there would not be any interest in publishing the headlines in the first place Not if the majority of the value resides in the headline. It's telling that, from the point of view of the government, Google and the media companies, the summary and the link to an article are worth more than the article itself.
    - manuelabeledo 3y ago
      > Not if the majority of the value resides in the headline. So you are telling me that Google is profiting from publishing content that is not theirs, without giving anything back in return? Because that's absolutely my point.
      - 3y ago