4 ms·

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

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 4y 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 4y 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.
    - 908B64B197 3y ago
      Not publishing. Aggregating. There's a difference (and this has been tested in court). Links aren't content from a legal perspective.
      - manuelabeledo 3y ago
        We are talking about headlines, not links. This is not necessarily about Google Search, but News. Also, it's not that links aren't content from a legal perspective, there's a lot going on there, but that they are opt-out content, meaning that one could just decide not to allow any search engine or aggregator to automatically index their contents. It is also different from personal aggregators, which is why you could do it yourself.

manuelabeledo 4y 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 4y 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.
  - 908B64B197 3y ago
    Not publishing. Aggregating. There's a difference (and this has been tested in court). Links aren't content from a legal perspective.
    - manuelabeledo 3y ago
      We are talking about headlines, not links. This is not necessarily about Google Search, but News. Also, it's not that links aren't content from a legal perspective, there's a lot going on there, but that they are opt-out content, meaning that one could just decide not to allow any search engine or aggregator to automatically index their contents. It is also different from personal aggregators, which is why you could do it yourself.