4 ms·

> If Google can't cache the whole article, they can't provide search for the article. Google can index the articles independently of serving their entirety to

by josefx 3y ago

> If Google can't cache the whole article, they can't provide search for the article. Google can index the articles independently of serving their entirety to visitors. Might as well claim that wikipedia can't have articles covering movies without acting as the worlds largest piracy site. > but then want Google to pay for the privilege. On the other hand Google wants all the articles for free, but doesn't have any motivation to share the users or ad impressions they attract.

jsnell 3y ago
> On the other hand Google wants all the articles for free, but doesn't have any motivation to share the users or ad impressions they attract. AFAIK Google doesn't show ads on Google News, they don't show ads on news queries, and they send the users to the news site via the link. There is no revenue to share, and the users are being shared to the extent that is possible given they're humans who have free will and will decide themselves which articles to read and which not. > Google can index the articles independently of serving their entirety to visitors I don't know what you're referring to here. AMP? The news site has to do extra work to enable AMP, and the entire point of AMP was always the cache. (But the revenue from the ads on the AMP page goes to the publication, not to Google). The search cache? The news site can opt out. The snippet? They can opt out. Images? I'm pretty sure they actually have to opt in for that, by emitting specific meta tags. The title? That is mandatory, but for the simple reason that you have to give the searcher something or they won't click through.
bastawhiz 3y ago
That's sort of the thing, though: what you're describing isn't what publishers seem to be upset about or what Google is doing. In my entire life, I have yet to see Google put someone else's article on their site (with or without ads). Take a minute to look through Google News and show me where Google is republishing anything. What's happening (afaict) is that Google is showing the excerpt of the article surrounding the user's query as they do with every other search result. The publishers are claiming "well, Google makes money from users searching for our stuff, therefore we should get a cut". To borrow your analogy, the evolution of this bill is publishers demanding a share of Wikimedia donations because they use their articles as sources. Why should Wikipedia have revenue built on the reporting of a third party and not share it?

by josefx 3y ago

jsnell 3y ago

> On the other hand Google wants all the articles for free, but doesn't have any motivation to share the users or ad impressions they attract. AFAIK Google doesn't show ads on Google News, they don't show ads on news queries, and they send the users to the news site via the link. There is no revenue to share, and the users are being shared to the extent that is possible given they're humans who have free will and will decide themselves which articles to read and which not. > Google can index the articles independently of serving their entirety to visitors I don't know what you're referring to here. AMP? The news site has to do extra work to enable AMP, and the entire point of AMP was always the cache. (But the revenue from the ads on the AMP page goes to the publication, not to Google). The search cache? The news site can opt out. The snippet? They can opt out. Images? I'm pretty sure they actually have to opt in for that, by emitting specific meta tags. The title? That is mandatory, but for the simple reason that you have to give the searcher something or they won't click through.

bastawhiz 3y ago

That's sort of the thing, though: what you're describing isn't what publishers seem to be upset about or what Google is doing. In my entire life, I have yet to see Google put someone else's article on their site (with or without ads). Take a minute to look through Google News and show me where Google is republishing anything. What's happening (afaict) is that Google is showing the excerpt of the article surrounding the user's query as they do with every other search result. The publishers are claiming "well, Google makes money from users searching for our stuff, therefore we should get a cut". To borrow your analogy, the evolution of this bill is publishers demanding a share of Wikimedia donations because they use their articles as sources. Why should Wikipedia have revenue built on the reporting of a third party and not share it?