5 ms·

Then ban that, don't ban linking.

rvnx 3y ago
From the perspective of the newspapers: Google is exploiting copyrighted content to make profit and create audience. If the search index of Google was empty, the people wouldn't use Google, it's that simple. So the newspapers are asking for royalties for feeding that search index.
- gruez 3y ago
  But they could easily opt out with robots.txt. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the free traffic from search engines AND want google to pay them for the privilege of bringing them traffic.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    robots.txt is not an actual Internet standard, and there are no standard controls for when a bot ignores its contents. You're on your own to protect your pages. Granted, I have `disallow: /` in mine because I don't want my stuff scraped, but I still see Googlebot sometimes, and others, try to crawl my site. It's not a very effective opt-out, because it requires the 'attacker' to honor the file's settings. Feel free to enable it on your own server and watch the logs for a few days after sharing some links.
    - 18pfsmt 3y ago
      Have you tried crying about the fact that you are getting traffic to your website that nobody would see otherwise? I hope daddy government treats you well. Count on Big Brother to save you, and they will beat you down when it's time as well.
- warning26 3y ago
  That's like demanding that Rand McNally pay a fee to each city they print onto their maps. Or demanding that World Book Encyclopedia pay a royalty fee to every entity they write an article about. Noting that something exists and including it in reference material should by no means incur royalties.
mattstir 3y ago
Who's banning linking? The new law tried to get tech companies to pay to show the links with previews (similar to Australia and France, etc). To be clear, the bill is fundamentally broken. It would require Google or Facebook to pay simply when links to news sites are served, rather than for reproducing or condensing the material in the news article as a "preview" sort of be thing (as in other countries). The bill isn't banning links explicitly, but the government should have seen this coming.
- dwaite 3y ago
  > The bill isn't banning links explicitly, but the government should have seen this coming. Perhaps they could have listened when the two companies they are trying to impose this on provide suggestions - or maybe modeled it more closely after legislation in other countries where such media taxes have been successful.

rvnx 3y ago

From the perspective of the newspapers: Google is exploiting copyrighted content to make profit and create audience. If the search index of Google was empty, the people wouldn't use Google, it's that simple. So the newspapers are asking for royalties for feeding that search index.

gruez 3y ago
But they could easily opt out with robots.txt. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the free traffic from search engines AND want google to pay them for the privilege of bringing them traffic.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  robots.txt is not an actual Internet standard, and there are no standard controls for when a bot ignores its contents. You're on your own to protect your pages. Granted, I have `disallow: /` in mine because I don't want my stuff scraped, but I still see Googlebot sometimes, and others, try to crawl my site. It's not a very effective opt-out, because it requires the 'attacker' to honor the file's settings. Feel free to enable it on your own server and watch the logs for a few days after sharing some links.
  - 18pfsmt 3y ago
    Have you tried crying about the fact that you are getting traffic to your website that nobody would see otherwise? I hope daddy government treats you well. Count on Big Brother to save you, and they will beat you down when it's time as well.
warning26 3y ago
That's like demanding that Rand McNally pay a fee to each city they print onto their maps. Or demanding that World Book Encyclopedia pay a royalty fee to every entity they write an article about. Noting that something exists and including it in reference material should by no means incur royalties.

mattstir 3y ago

Who's banning linking? The new law tried to get tech companies to pay to show the links with previews (similar to Australia and France, etc). To be clear, the bill is fundamentally broken. It would require Google or Facebook to pay simply when links to news sites are served, rather than for reproducing or condensing the material in the news article as a "preview" sort of be thing (as in other countries). The bill isn't banning links explicitly, but the government should have seen this coming.

dwaite 3y ago
> The bill isn't banning links explicitly, but the government should have seen this coming. Perhaps they could have listened when the two companies they are trying to impose this on provide suggestions - or maybe modeled it more closely after legislation in other countries where such media taxes have been successful.