4 ms·
Traffic is generated by the content which is not free (most of the time) to produce. Google without content is what except an empty library? I'm not sure why p
by monsieurgaufre 3y ago
Traffic is generated by the content which is not free (most of the time) to produce. Google without content is what except an empty library?
I'm not sure why people here are defending GOOG so much.
- throwawaycad11 3y agoCanadian here as well. Your assumption that traffic is generated by content (alone) is incorrect. Google is certainly profiting, but the news publisher will struggle to find readers without Google. It's a symbiotic relationship, but Google is doing the REAL work. If you don't believe that, build your own website and try to get people to read your content. Believe me, content doesn't matter as much as reach. If you want to support Canadian news outlets, then go to their websites directly. Let's see them stand on their own without Google, and see who provides the most value. This law will kill Canadian news outlets. No one pays for their content when there's a global ecosystem of stuff to subscribe to. That's capitalism. Good riddance.
- monsieurgaufre 3y agoI already go directly to the websites. Have always done that. I subscribe for a specialized publication that offers free articles because i find the publication useful. I might be dumb but i can't understand how content matters less than reach. Without content, reach is useless. (and without reach, content is mostly useless as well..) My take is that both are things of the past and using legal ways to fight for relevancy, each for different reasons. I don't have a horse in this race.
- wand3r 3y agoSpeaking for myself, on the merits, Google's position makes more sense. On an emotional level, I dislike media news companies companies more than I dislike Google...which is a lot.
- monsieurgaufre 3y agoWe share a similar dislike for media news companies.. and Google. Like i said, i find the media companies boring and they abdicated a while ago being the "fourth" power. I might also not understand all the consequences of the bill as well.
- tredre3 3y agoAs you say, Google without content is an empty library. But it works in the other direction too. News websites without Google/Social Media are ghost towns. Few people go to them directly.
- tradewinds 3y agoNews outlets have to compete within Google's search results. Google is, at least currently, the de facto search engine and their competition over providing all results is minimal. So Google is benefitting from the overall relationship far more than the outlets are. Not saying Google owes them, but there is a clear difference in competition between the two sides.
- Arnavion 3y agoNews websites worked fine before Google. People did go to them directly.
- rektide 3y agoIt depends on whether you consider a headline and part of a sentance the content or not, I I guess. It sure doesn't seem to me like creating a link & giving people an extremely concise blurb that hopefully entices them to follow it is the content. As an individual I expect to be able to cite things in the world and to tell people how they can read it too. Legislating that basic right away feels like madness.
- jupp0r 3y agoGoogle is stopping to show results for news outlets, so everything is fine, right? What else do you criticize them for?