3 ms·
> 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 pla
by 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.
- 908B64B197 3y agoNot publishing. Aggregating. There's a difference (and this has been tested in court). Links aren't content from a legal perspective.
- manuelabeledo 3y agoWe 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.