3 ms·

Surely news publications benefit more from Google/Facebook providing links to their content? Actually, no. It might be a symbiotic relationship for a small-ti

Surely news publications benefit more from Google/Facebook providing links to their content? Actually, no. It might be a symbiotic relationship for a small-time blog, but for a major news organization, it isn't. The Toronto Star and Global TV don't need freepub from Google. One example among many: Most people see the headline – the headline written by a paid headline writer based on an article from a paid journalist on a staff of other professionals with families to feed - and then move on. Very often a headline is all someone needs or wants. That has value. Without anyone clicking through to the web site, Google is getting the value from the headline, and contributing nothing to the web site in return. It's like saying that when Google steals content from web sites and presents it as an answer card in search results that the web site somehow gets something out of it. That's completely false. The only one getting anything out of it is Google.

dmayle 3y ago
This is the most ridiculous take on this that I've ever seen. Next you're going to say that newspaper stands need to pay a charge to the newspaper each time someone walks by their stall (or buys gum, for example). They have seen the headline, and then moved on. Very often a headline is all someone needs or wants. That has value. Without anyone buying that newspaper, the newspaper stand has got value from the headline, and contributed nothing to the newspaper publisher in return. The reality is that headlines are advertisements for articles. That's why there are headline writers in the first place. Make a better advertisement, get more sales. In the case of Google, publishing links with headlines means publishing free ads for that website. The website most certainly benefits from that relationship, if they didn't, they would just use robots.txt to block Google indexing their website, which someone has always been free to do. The real problem is that newspapers would just like to take a percentage of Google revenue, because they're a big company.
- regnard 3y ago
  I agree with this take-- and this is probably why Google and Meta were the only companies included. What about Reddit, Twitter, (and even HN)? The counterpoint here is that this bill is very protectionist in nature and aims to give something to the Canadian news & media industry.
  - adjav 3y ago
    Oh no, it's not just Google and Meta. That's how it's being presented, but it's actually whoever the CRTC wants to charge. They can and will change the list at any time, with no need for oversight.
- reaperducer 3y ago
  The real problem is that newspapers would just like to take a percentage of Google revenue, because they're a big company. If that's the case, let Google do its own reporting and write its own headlines. It's not like it doesn't have the money. Problem solved.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    That would be a great outcome for Google wouldn’t it? Just cover national news using paid reporters and capture all of the ad revenue.
    - pyrale 3y ago
      > That would be a great outcome for Google wouldn’t it? Just cover national news using paid reporters and capture all of the ad revenue. They already capture most of the ad revenue. And Google is notoriously bad when it comes to paying humans to investigate issues, as shown by their absent customer service.
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago
    Then Google would probably get antitrust complaints from including their own news but not competitors' news sites.
- 6D794163636F756 3y ago
  Yeah, the definition of news content being "news content means content — in any format, including an audio or audiovisual format — that reports on, investigates or explains current issues or events of public interest and includes such content that an Indigenous news outlet makes available by means of Indigenous storytelling. (contenu de nouvelles)" seems overly broad but I doubt they intend for headlines to be included. I think the bill will lead to further litigation, specifically if a headline counts as reporting or explaining. I doubt a headline can investigate. It does also seem to put a limit on a platform's ability to negotiate which is worrying. After 3 rounds of negotiations an arbiter can come in and decide what is a fair price and companies are not allowed to treat different news organizations differently. This seems to have room to abuse for me.
- JamisonM 3y ago
  This newspaper stand argument is really, really bad. The headlines of the physical newspaper on the front page are for the purposes of advertising the newspaper.. and the newspaper stand sells the newspapers - that's a big contribution to the newspaper business!
musha68k 3y ago
Do you remember actual newsstands?
- reaperducer 3y ago
  Do you remember actual newsstands? I do. I remember when the newspaper was 10¢. The guy working the stand didn't let you stand in front of it and read all the headlines in every page of every newspaper and magazine for free. "I'm only reading the headlines" would get you a slap upside the head.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    Quite the contrary: the news stands would have the front page displayed quite prominently precisely so that you could read the headlines of the main stories to attract the interest of passerbys: https://p.turbosquid.com/ts-thumb/0m/ePJxnz/tlmgVado/news_stands_12/jpg/1204569666/1920x1080/fit_q99/f7f118ff235e678685ed0f329d2c415bc01ebd7a/news_stands_12.jpg https://p.turbosquid.com/ts-thumb/0m/ePJxnz/tlmgVado/news_st... If outlets don't want the headlines scraped and displayed, then they're free to modify their `robots.txt` file accordingly. But they don't because they're well aware that this would reduce, not improve, their bottom line.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    I did this all the time and I don't remember getting slapped.
Marsymars 3y ago
Well then, maybe the law should be a headline tax rather than a link tax. As currently written, Google/Facebook would be free to continue providing headlines that don't link to the sources.
danbtl 3y ago
You might be underestimating the amount of traffic Google sends to publishers through Google News. Anecdotally, I get Android notifications from CBC, Global, etc. through Google News daily and do sometimes click on them.
- reaperducer 3y ago
  You might be underestimating the amount of traffic Google sends to publishers through Google News. I have worked for two major newspaper companies. I might know a little bit about this.
  - danbtl 3y ago
    Could you share the percentage of traffic coming from Google News, roughly?
- fomine3 3y ago
  What's big now by Google is Google Discovery. It's shown on Chrome.
scarface_74 3y ago
How much would Google be hurt if it just stopped indexing news sites?
pgrote 3y ago
>Very often a headline is all someone needs or wants. That has value. Without anyone clicking through to the web site, Google is getting the value from the headline, and contributing nothing to the web site in return. So the solution Google is proposing works out for everyone. Canadian news sites can ensure people go to their site for headlines and Google can no longer show information for those sites. The Canadian news sites should see increased revenue in terms of subscriptions and advertisements.
jsnell 3y ago
> The Toronto Star and Global TV don't need freepub from Google. So have those publications opted out of search and Google News? If not, it's pretty clear that they're getting more benefit from those links than they're losing to people "reading the headline and getting all they needed from it". I assume these news organizations don't even bother writing the article, right? Because your story obviously applies equally well to their own site. Users will open the frontpage of the site, read the expertly crafted headline, and leave.
petercooper 3y ago
A headline's job is to provide enough information to encourage someone to read more if the story is relevant to them. If someone doesn't want to read on, no value is lost. News sites could get rid of their <title> and OpenGraph tags, and people could share the raw story URLs without any context. No-one would click through as they'd have no idea where the URL went, though, so news sites provide these titles willingly and have full control over how they write them or what level of detail they share. The idea that headlines like "Queen Elizabeth has died", "Madonna discharged from hospital", or "Interest rates go up" replace the need for the rest of the story for any substantial part of the target audience seems far fetched to me, and if the meat of the story is given away in the og:description.. they wrote it!
tenpies 3y ago
Pablo Rodriguez, is that you? For those unfamiliar, Pablo Rodriguez is the Minister of Canadian Heritage under whose auspices all these censorship and control schemes are being pushed forward. Ironically, Pablo Rodriguez is the son of an Argentine Peronista (the far-left populism that cripples Argentina to this day). The family fled the country when the war broke out. Pablo was old enough to see first hands what happens when there is no free independent press, and now he's eagerly fostering those same conditions onto Canada.
rossjudson 3y ago
Are you saying that the entire information content of the article is actually just packed into the title?

dmayle 3y ago

This is the most ridiculous take on this that I've ever seen. Next you're going to say that newspaper stands need to pay a charge to the newspaper each time someone walks by their stall (or buys gum, for example). They have seen the headline, and then moved on. Very often a headline is all someone needs or wants. That has value. Without anyone buying that newspaper, the newspaper stand has got value from the headline, and contributed nothing to the newspaper publisher in return. The reality is that headlines are advertisements for articles. That's why there are headline writers in the first place. Make a better advertisement, get more sales. In the case of Google, publishing links with headlines means publishing free ads for that website. The website most certainly benefits from that relationship, if they didn't, they would just use robots.txt to block Google indexing their website, which someone has always been free to do. The real problem is that newspapers would just like to take a percentage of Google revenue, because they're a big company.

regnard 3y ago
I agree with this take-- and this is probably why Google and Meta were the only companies included. What about Reddit, Twitter, (and even HN)? The counterpoint here is that this bill is very protectionist in nature and aims to give something to the Canadian news & media industry.
- adjav 3y ago
  Oh no, it's not just Google and Meta. That's how it's being presented, but it's actually whoever the CRTC wants to charge. They can and will change the list at any time, with no need for oversight.
reaperducer 3y ago
The real problem is that newspapers would just like to take a percentage of Google revenue, because they're a big company. If that's the case, let Google do its own reporting and write its own headlines. It's not like it doesn't have the money. Problem solved.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  That would be a great outcome for Google wouldn’t it? Just cover national news using paid reporters and capture all of the ad revenue.
  - pyrale 3y ago
    > That would be a great outcome for Google wouldn’t it? Just cover national news using paid reporters and capture all of the ad revenue. They already capture most of the ad revenue. And Google is notoriously bad when it comes to paying humans to investigate issues, as shown by their absent customer service.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  Then Google would probably get antitrust complaints from including their own news but not competitors' news sites.
6D794163636F756 3y ago
Yeah, the definition of news content being "news content means content — in any format, including an audio or audiovisual format — that reports on, investigates or explains current issues or events of public interest and includes such content that an Indigenous news outlet makes available by means of Indigenous storytelling. (contenu de nouvelles)" seems overly broad but I doubt they intend for headlines to be included. I think the bill will lead to further litigation, specifically if a headline counts as reporting or explaining. I doubt a headline can investigate. It does also seem to put a limit on a platform's ability to negotiate which is worrying. After 3 rounds of negotiations an arbiter can come in and decide what is a fair price and companies are not allowed to treat different news organizations differently. This seems to have room to abuse for me.
JamisonM 3y ago
This newspaper stand argument is really, really bad. The headlines of the physical newspaper on the front page are for the purposes of advertising the newspaper.. and the newspaper stand sells the newspapers - that's a big contribution to the newspaper business!

musha68k 3y ago

Do you remember actual newsstands?

reaperducer 3y ago
Do you remember actual newsstands? I do. I remember when the newspaper was 10¢. The guy working the stand didn't let you stand in front of it and read all the headlines in every page of every newspaper and magazine for free. "I'm only reading the headlines" would get you a slap upside the head.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Quite the contrary: the news stands would have the front page displayed quite prominently precisely so that you could read the headlines of the main stories to attract the interest of passerbys: https://p.turbosquid.com/ts-thumb/0m/ePJxnz/tlmgVado/news_stands_12/jpg/1204569666/1920x1080/fit_q99/f7f118ff235e678685ed0f329d2c415bc01ebd7a/news_stands_12.jpg https://p.turbosquid.com/ts-thumb/0m/ePJxnz/tlmgVado/news_st... If outlets don't want the headlines scraped and displayed, then they're free to modify their `robots.txt` file accordingly. But they don't because they're well aware that this would reduce, not improve, their bottom line.
- int_19h 3y ago
  I did this all the time and I don't remember getting slapped.

Marsymars 3y ago

Well then, maybe the law should be a headline tax rather than a link tax. As currently written, Google/Facebook would be free to continue providing headlines that don't link to the sources.

danbtl 3y ago

You might be underestimating the amount of traffic Google sends to publishers through Google News. Anecdotally, I get Android notifications from CBC, Global, etc. through Google News daily and do sometimes click on them.

reaperducer 3y ago
You might be underestimating the amount of traffic Google sends to publishers through Google News. I have worked for two major newspaper companies. I might know a little bit about this.
- danbtl 3y ago
  Could you share the percentage of traffic coming from Google News, roughly?
fomine3 3y ago
What's big now by Google is Google Discovery. It's shown on Chrome.

scarface_74 3y ago

How much would Google be hurt if it just stopped indexing news sites?

pgrote 3y ago

>Very often a headline is all someone needs or wants. That has value. Without anyone clicking through to the web site, Google is getting the value from the headline, and contributing nothing to the web site in return. So the solution Google is proposing works out for everyone. Canadian news sites can ensure people go to their site for headlines and Google can no longer show information for those sites. The Canadian news sites should see increased revenue in terms of subscriptions and advertisements.

jsnell 3y ago

> The Toronto Star and Global TV don't need freepub from Google. So have those publications opted out of search and Google News? If not, it's pretty clear that they're getting more benefit from those links than they're losing to people "reading the headline and getting all they needed from it". I assume these news organizations don't even bother writing the article, right? Because your story obviously applies equally well to their own site. Users will open the frontpage of the site, read the expertly crafted headline, and leave.

petercooper 3y ago

A headline's job is to provide enough information to encourage someone to read more if the story is relevant to them. If someone doesn't want to read on, no value is lost. News sites could get rid of their <title> and OpenGraph tags, and people could share the raw story URLs without any context. No-one would click through as they'd have no idea where the URL went, though, so news sites provide these titles willingly and have full control over how they write them or what level of detail they share. The idea that headlines like "Queen Elizabeth has died", "Madonna discharged from hospital", or "Interest rates go up" replace the need for the rest of the story for any substantial part of the target audience seems far fetched to me, and if the meat of the story is given away in the og:description.. they wrote it!

tenpies 3y ago

Pablo Rodriguez, is that you? For those unfamiliar, Pablo Rodriguez is the Minister of Canadian Heritage under whose auspices all these censorship and control schemes are being pushed forward. Ironically, Pablo Rodriguez is the son of an Argentine Peronista (the far-left populism that cripples Argentina to this day). The family fled the country when the war broke out. Pablo was old enough to see first hands what happens when there is no free independent press, and now he's eagerly fostering those same conditions onto Canada.

rossjudson 3y ago

Are you saying that the entire information content of the article is actually just packed into the title?