5 ms·

As much a really don't like Google, I'm afraid newspapers are losing traffic and thus revenue from their own mistakes. Example here: We're all using HN to learn

As much a really don't like Google, I'm afraid newspapers are losing traffic and thus revenue from their own mistakes. Example here: We're all using HN to learn about this article. If I go to the front page of USA TODAY, I'm show a buntch of useless articles and news that are irrelevant to me. That's the only wining strategty: Google uses algorithms to optimize user experency, legacy newspapers still belive that they are the ones that will dictactate what you'll read or not.

rafaelturk 3y ago
and yes don't get me wrong.. I agree with the general idea behind the lawsuit: Google's is hostile and anti-competitive monopolisitic company. Yet, the initial problem remains, newspapers whant this `ownership` back, but doing so with very biased views, where they will dictate what is `newsworthy` or not
- lapcat 3y ago
  > where they will dictate what is `newsworthy` or not That's literally their job.
  - judge2020 3y ago
    OP likely meant that people no longer want the newspaper to be the only organizations capable of deciding what is 'newsworthy', since before the internet, newspaper and TV news were effectively the only ways anyone found out about the events and happenings going on outside of their daily lives. They're losing because people would rather get more curated news for their interests delivered via algorithm than by going to usatoday.com or buying a paper newspaper and being shown "Sarah Jessica Parker, 'Sex and the City' co-stars 'bummed' about cameo leak" when they couldn't care less.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > curated news for their interests delivered via algorithm "curated" and "algorithm" are opposites. In any case, the algorithms don't magically write news stories (though maybe they will now with ChatGPT or whatever). The stories are pulled from the very same newspapers that are being criticized here.
      - shadowgovt 3y ago
        > "curated" and "algorithm" are opposites. Not at all. An algorithm is curation at scale. Algorithms are made by humans and encode the biases humans want to apply without having to push the buttons themselves to properly bin new input every time it comes in.
        sleepybrett 3y ago
        The problem being that algorithms have a strict set of rules, human curators are generally looser and introduce a certain amount of entropy into a 'feed'. Entropy can be a 'delighter'.
civilized 3y ago
The lawsuit isn't asking a court to destroy Google's algorithms. It's demanding a competitive ad market that isn't monopolized by Google, so that content creators get a larger share of the revenue they are ultimately responsible for.
- judge2020 3y ago
  It's only a monopoly on Google's side because site owners use Adsense, so companies running ads go to Adwords to advertise on these sites. What remains to be seen is if Google is actually pulling any anti-competitive tactics to prevent people from leaving adsense or keep ad companies running on Adwords.
  - rafaelturk 3y ago
    Thats the core of the case. It will be more political than actually technical.
  - civilized 3y ago
    I agree there needs to be more evidence of anticompetitive practices. I'm hoping this will be a great opportunity to learn about the digital ad market. I just googled "alternatives to adsense" and it seems like there are many. I have no really informed idea why Google dominates with its products. I assume it ultimately goes back to the search engine, somehow. EDIT: I found an interesting article https://law.stanford.edu/publications/why-google-dominates-advertising-markets/ https://law.stanford.edu/publications/why-google-dominates-a... Abstract: Approximately 86% of online display advertising space in the U.S. is boughtand sold in real-time on electronic trading venues, which the industry calls “advertising exchanges.” With intermediaries that route buy and sell orders, the structure of the ad market is similar to the structure of electronically traded financial markets. In advertising, a single company, Alphabet (“Google”), simultaneously operates the leading trading venue, as well as the leading intermediaries that buyers and sellers go through to trade. At the same time, Google itself is one of the largest sellers of ad space globally. This Article explains how Google dominates advertising markets by engaging in conduct that lawmakers prohibit in other electronic trading markets: Google’s exchange shares superior trading information and speed with the Google-owned intermediaries, Google steers buy and sell orders to its exchange and websites (Search & YouTube), and Google abuses its access to inside information. In the market for electronically traded equities, we require exchanges to provide traders with fair access to data and speed, we identify and manage intermediary conflicts of interest, and we requiretrading disclosures to help police the market. Because ads now trade on electronic trading venues too, should we borrow these three competition principles to protect the integrity of advertising?
wand3r 3y ago
Yeah, I am a long time Google hater but I still think there are a host of other rent seekers. These Newspapers are getting free distribution and can easily use robots.txt if they want to stop Google. Similarly, I can't help but feel like Europe just does some cash grab once a month and hits Google with some fine about data. I think Google is a scumbag company, but on principle it seems like Europe and Newspapers just try and milk this cash cow they are TOTALLY dependent on rather than truly do anything to erode Googles power.
- supermatt 3y ago
  What is the deal with the anti-EU sentiment? Is there something specific you disagree with, or do you simply think laws shouldnt apply to megacorps? The fines google pays for its continued abuse of user data and anti-competitive business practices are a pittance compared to the EUs annual budget (>180bn EUR this year). Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. They could always just stop doing the shit (or just pull out of the EU).
  - photonthug 3y ago
    Not the parent, but I do understand the sentiment and I don't think it's "anti-EU" at all, and parent was clear that they don't like megacorp. Consider the following two step process: a) Megacorp monetizes people through exploitation, and b) Nation-states monetize megacorp by levying pointless fines that effect no real change to actually help people This might not be a very nuanced take about how things work, but is it really a terrible summary? Whether it's casually evil data-mongering, or industrial accidents like oil spills / train derailments, or more directly evil practices like price gouging for drugs that keep people alive.. we see this stuff play out all the time. Government-levied fines for such things don't seem to be working as a disincentive for megacorp, so how many times can you watch it before going full-cynic and just labeling it as a form of rent-seeking? I'd like to be an optimist that sees a well intentioned government intervening on behalf of the people, but I'm personally running out of patience and faith. I think a lot of people are the same. I'd certainly stop short of saying the EU is completely corrupted, like they are just redirecting the fine-payouts into their politicians pockets or something. And FWIW, as an American I certainly do appreciate the EU's very civilized push for data-regulation/right-to-repair/etc. But I think we have to admit fines aren't successful at reforming megacorp, or more specifically I don't think GDPR is fixing the internet. Why are things steadily getting worse despite more regulation? Again, not a nuanced take, but when people are looking for an explanation, at some point it's natural to think this looks like rent-seeking, because it's either that or sheer incompetence.
silisili 3y ago
Gannett/USAToday seem to own about every local paper anymore. Their business model is to charge a low price, then jack it up in a year hoping you won't notice. Then not offer refunds and make you call and wait a long time to cancel. My last experience canceling was so bad I'll never sign up with another of their papers. All of that out of the way, this lawsuit has merit IMO. Google's ad monopoly should be broken up, or at worst better regulated. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, for now, and all that.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Their strategy is to also not have enough reporters to cover local issues. Local newspapers used to put in a lot of effort to find the news. Other than the local high school sports (which they cover more than the small local papers used to )
  - Rebelgecko 3y ago
    My parents still subscribe to a Gannett paper for some reason even though they always talk about how awful it has become. All of the news is 2 days old because the actual newspapers are printed in another state now. I know one of their journalists who lives about 150 miles from the area that the newspaper covers since they don't pay him enough to live in the locale he's writing about.
  - dehrmann 3y ago
    Is it a strategy, or the reality that they can't afford enough reporters?
    - bluGill 3y ago
      I don't know, but the small papers they bought out did better
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy; no more, no less." ~ Maxim 29. But I'm content to grab popcorn and watch a dinosaur fight a dragon on this one. Neither company here has clean hands and it's high time someone spent the money to force Congress and the courts to step in and lay some ground rules for the sandbox so all the kiddies can play together nicely.
ben7799 3y ago
The reason the newspaper is showing you a bunch of garbage is because Google has basically forced them to. They need the articles on the main page that will push them up in search results. It's not even what articles they show on the front page, it extends into the content within the article. (Not that USA Today was ever great) If you go back to the late 90s when the newspapers first went online they weren't putting all the garbage on the front page.
- lokar 3y ago
  USA Today has always been a garbage joke of a newspaper.
dehrmann 3y ago
Their claims seem reasonable, but they don't admit that the other problem is their content isn't worth what it used to be or what they think it's worth.
JackFr 3y ago
The problem most newspapers face is that they have to compete with the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal and none of them can. (And USA TODAY has always been garbage, long before the internet.) The only categories in which my local paper can compete and win in are local high school sports, local politics and local crime reporting. And that's not much of a business model.

rafaelturk 3y ago

and yes don't get me wrong.. I agree with the general idea behind the lawsuit: Google's is hostile and anti-competitive monopolisitic company. Yet, the initial problem remains, newspapers whant this `ownership` back, but doing so with very biased views, where they will dictate what is `newsworthy` or not

lapcat 3y ago
> where they will dictate what is `newsworthy` or not That's literally their job.
- judge2020 3y ago
  OP likely meant that people no longer want the newspaper to be the only organizations capable of deciding what is 'newsworthy', since before the internet, newspaper and TV news were effectively the only ways anyone found out about the events and happenings going on outside of their daily lives. They're losing because people would rather get more curated news for their interests delivered via algorithm than by going to usatoday.com or buying a paper newspaper and being shown "Sarah Jessica Parker, 'Sex and the City' co-stars 'bummed' about cameo leak" when they couldn't care less.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > curated news for their interests delivered via algorithm "curated" and "algorithm" are opposites. In any case, the algorithms don't magically write news stories (though maybe they will now with ChatGPT or whatever). The stories are pulled from the very same newspapers that are being criticized here.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      > "curated" and "algorithm" are opposites. Not at all. An algorithm is curation at scale. Algorithms are made by humans and encode the biases humans want to apply without having to push the buttons themselves to properly bin new input every time it comes in.
      - sleepybrett 3y ago
        The problem being that algorithms have a strict set of rules, human curators are generally looser and introduce a certain amount of entropy into a 'feed'. Entropy can be a 'delighter'.

civilized 3y ago

The lawsuit isn't asking a court to destroy Google's algorithms. It's demanding a competitive ad market that isn't monopolized by Google, so that content creators get a larger share of the revenue they are ultimately responsible for.

judge2020 3y ago
It's only a monopoly on Google's side because site owners use Adsense, so companies running ads go to Adwords to advertise on these sites. What remains to be seen is if Google is actually pulling any anti-competitive tactics to prevent people from leaving adsense or keep ad companies running on Adwords.
- rafaelturk 3y ago
  Thats the core of the case. It will be more political than actually technical.
- civilized 3y ago
  I agree there needs to be more evidence of anticompetitive practices. I'm hoping this will be a great opportunity to learn about the digital ad market. I just googled "alternatives to adsense" and it seems like there are many. I have no really informed idea why Google dominates with its products. I assume it ultimately goes back to the search engine, somehow. EDIT: I found an interesting article https://law.stanford.edu/publications/why-google-dominates-advertising-markets/ https://law.stanford.edu/publications/why-google-dominates-a... Abstract: Approximately 86% of online display advertising space in the U.S. is boughtand sold in real-time on electronic trading venues, which the industry calls “advertising exchanges.” With intermediaries that route buy and sell orders, the structure of the ad market is similar to the structure of electronically traded financial markets. In advertising, a single company, Alphabet (“Google”), simultaneously operates the leading trading venue, as well as the leading intermediaries that buyers and sellers go through to trade. At the same time, Google itself is one of the largest sellers of ad space globally. This Article explains how Google dominates advertising markets by engaging in conduct that lawmakers prohibit in other electronic trading markets: Google’s exchange shares superior trading information and speed with the Google-owned intermediaries, Google steers buy and sell orders to its exchange and websites (Search & YouTube), and Google abuses its access to inside information. In the market for electronically traded equities, we require exchanges to provide traders with fair access to data and speed, we identify and manage intermediary conflicts of interest, and we requiretrading disclosures to help police the market. Because ads now trade on electronic trading venues too, should we borrow these three competition principles to protect the integrity of advertising?

wand3r 3y ago

Yeah, I am a long time Google hater but I still think there are a host of other rent seekers. These Newspapers are getting free distribution and can easily use robots.txt if they want to stop Google. Similarly, I can't help but feel like Europe just does some cash grab once a month and hits Google with some fine about data. I think Google is a scumbag company, but on principle it seems like Europe and Newspapers just try and milk this cash cow they are TOTALLY dependent on rather than truly do anything to erode Googles power.

supermatt 3y ago
What is the deal with the anti-EU sentiment? Is there something specific you disagree with, or do you simply think laws shouldnt apply to megacorps? The fines google pays for its continued abuse of user data and anti-competitive business practices are a pittance compared to the EUs annual budget (>180bn EUR this year). Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. They could always just stop doing the shit (or just pull out of the EU).
- photonthug 3y ago
  Not the parent, but I do understand the sentiment and I don't think it's "anti-EU" at all, and parent was clear that they don't like megacorp. Consider the following two step process: a) Megacorp monetizes people through exploitation, and b) Nation-states monetize megacorp by levying pointless fines that effect no real change to actually help people This might not be a very nuanced take about how things work, but is it really a terrible summary? Whether it's casually evil data-mongering, or industrial accidents like oil spills / train derailments, or more directly evil practices like price gouging for drugs that keep people alive.. we see this stuff play out all the time. Government-levied fines for such things don't seem to be working as a disincentive for megacorp, so how many times can you watch it before going full-cynic and just labeling it as a form of rent-seeking? I'd like to be an optimist that sees a well intentioned government intervening on behalf of the people, but I'm personally running out of patience and faith. I think a lot of people are the same. I'd certainly stop short of saying the EU is completely corrupted, like they are just redirecting the fine-payouts into their politicians pockets or something. And FWIW, as an American I certainly do appreciate the EU's very civilized push for data-regulation/right-to-repair/etc. But I think we have to admit fines aren't successful at reforming megacorp, or more specifically I don't think GDPR is fixing the internet. Why are things steadily getting worse despite more regulation? Again, not a nuanced take, but when people are looking for an explanation, at some point it's natural to think this looks like rent-seeking, because it's either that or sheer incompetence.

silisili 3y ago

Gannett/USAToday seem to own about every local paper anymore. Their business model is to charge a low price, then jack it up in a year hoping you won't notice. Then not offer refunds and make you call and wait a long time to cancel. My last experience canceling was so bad I'll never sign up with another of their papers. All of that out of the way, this lawsuit has merit IMO. Google's ad monopoly should be broken up, or at worst better regulated. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, for now, and all that.

bluGill 3y ago
Their strategy is to also not have enough reporters to cover local issues. Local newspapers used to put in a lot of effort to find the news. Other than the local high school sports (which they cover more than the small local papers used to )
- Rebelgecko 3y ago
  My parents still subscribe to a Gannett paper for some reason even though they always talk about how awful it has become. All of the news is 2 days old because the actual newspapers are printed in another state now. I know one of their journalists who lives about 150 miles from the area that the newspaper covers since they don't pay him enough to live in the locale he's writing about.
- dehrmann 3y ago
  Is it a strategy, or the reality that they can't afford enough reporters?
  - bluGill 3y ago
    I don't know, but the small papers they bought out did better
shadowgovt 3y ago
"The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy; no more, no less." ~ Maxim 29. But I'm content to grab popcorn and watch a dinosaur fight a dragon on this one. Neither company here has clean hands and it's high time someone spent the money to force Congress and the courts to step in and lay some ground rules for the sandbox so all the kiddies can play together nicely.

ben7799 3y ago

The reason the newspaper is showing you a bunch of garbage is because Google has basically forced them to. They need the articles on the main page that will push them up in search results. It's not even what articles they show on the front page, it extends into the content within the article. (Not that USA Today was ever great) If you go back to the late 90s when the newspapers first went online they weren't putting all the garbage on the front page.

lokar 3y ago
USA Today has always been a garbage joke of a newspaper.

dehrmann 3y ago

Their claims seem reasonable, but they don't admit that the other problem is their content isn't worth what it used to be or what they think it's worth.

JackFr 3y ago

The problem most newspapers face is that they have to compete with the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal and none of them can. (And USA TODAY has always been garbage, long before the internet.) The only categories in which my local paper can compete and win in are local high school sports, local politics and local crime reporting. And that's not much of a business model.