4 ms·

"Link tax" is clearly chosen in bad faith, like in other cases where that wording had been used. What's really happening is that Google Search shows previews of

"Link tax" is clearly chosen in bad faith, like in other cases where that wording had been used. What's really happening is that Google Search shows previews of large parts of articles such that visitors don't go to origin sites to generate page impressions/ad playouts. Which is especially problematic since Google/Alphabet is either an ad provider on the skipped news site or its competitor.

Dylan16807 3y ago
I'm pretty sure I've seen multiple critiques that this specific law is in fact a link tax, and doesn't care if there are previews or not. Is that wrong? Sure, google currently has previews, and a law could be written to target previews, but I don't think this law targets previews.
- SiempreViernes 3y ago
  It does target previews very explicitly, but it also has a much broader condition that I imagine is there to prevent Google and others from making previews something technically not provided by them but instead created by some payload they give the users of their website.
nradov 3y ago
How many characters of preview would be reasonable? 50? 100?
- soganess 3y ago
  Why would you even use number of characters? A better criteria is: what fraction of people does it stop from visiting the source (because they got the information they were looking for from the summary). Yes, yes that system has it's own problems, but it is more holistic that string.length().
  - nradov 3y ago
    Determining that fraction would require the search engine to run a series of A/B tests with varying preview lengths, and keep detailed records of test results. That seems like an unreasonable burden.
    - kridsdale1 3y ago
      That’s exactly the kind of activity the google is doing every single day, thousands of them in parallel.
- CivBase 3y ago
  How much am I allowed to quote from a book before I'm considered a pirate?
  - nradov 3y ago
    In the US we have fairly clear guidelines for fair use of copyrighted materials such as books. Rules in Canada may be different. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html
gspencley 3y ago
This is a popular myth about the way the law works in Canada. The myth may be based on how the Australian version works, I wouldn't know. But here in Canada, this is the relevant text of the bill: > digital news intermediary means an online communications platform, including a search engine or social media service, that is subject to the legislative authority of Parliament and that makes news content produced by news outlets available to persons in Canada "Making available" includes just links. In other words, there is no qualifier in the bill what-so-ever that requires that previews and snippets be extracted and provided. A single link with no text or any other content whatever qualifies as "making available." Here is the entire text of the bill: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-18/royal-assent https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-18/royal-a...
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  > makes news content [...] available That sounds like a simple link wouldn't count?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - gspencley 3y ago
    I suppose I could have included other "relevant" sections of the bill. But there's a reason I linked to the full text. > "Making available of news content (2) For the purposes of this Act, news content is made available if (a) the news content, or any portion of it, is reproduced; or (b) access to the news content, or any portion of it, is facilitated by any means, including an index, aggregation or ranking of news content." So not only is there no qualifier saying that content needs to be reproduced, but (b) specifically says that "facilitating" access BY ANY MEANS counts as "making available."
    - kevingadd 3y ago
      Indexes don't work without consuming the news content first in order to build the index, right? So it's reasonable to argue that a news search index is a derived work that draws some amount of value from the source news content. Without the news sites offering their news for free to google's spider, google's index would be useless. You could make a similar argument for aggregators since they usually display excerpts and thumbnails. Ranking seems harder to justify.
brushfoot 3y ago
The act targets more than content previews. Notice (b): > (2) For the purposes of this Act, news content is made available if > (a) the news content, or any portion of it, is reproduced; or > (b) access to the news content, or any portion of it, is facilitated by any means, including an index, aggregation or ranking of news content.
jsnell 3y ago
Except that the actual text of the law does not match your claim. It's about "facilitating access to news content by any means" including an "index" or "aggregation". Not about reproducing large chunks of the original content. And it should be pretty obvious that this is the case. If your interpretation was correct, Meta would not have removed Canadian news sources entirely. They'd just have removed the previews (hell, the news companies could have removed the previews themselves; they already have the controls for that).
- llm_nerd 3y ago
  >If your interpretation was correct, Meta would not have removed Canadian news sources entirely. Meta's actions prove absolutely nothing. I could similarly say that Google didn't remove any news, therefore the law has zero effect? Meta has, for months in advance of anything coming into force, embargoed Canadian news and replaced it with an appeal to the reader. That is political action, and it seems to have failed given that the government didn't blink. Now that Google has an agreement, it looks especially silly. If Meta continues their embargo of Canadian news, personally I consider that a good thing. The Canadian public accepting that Meta is not a good source or "homepage" for news is a wonderful outcome of all of this.
  - ipaddr 3y ago
    I welcome it for the opposite reason. The few powerful families that control the news cartel in Canada need less reach.
    - SiempreViernes 3y ago
      You "welcome" media control going from a "few families" to a single person?
      - ipaddr 3y ago
        When you mute corporate media all of these little voices get louder.
CivBase 3y ago
Are news articles considered intellectual property, like books? If so, wouldn't it already be considered piracy for Google to copy and redistribute significant portions of the articles? If so - and if this law is not actually a "link tax" like you claim - then what is this law really preventing?

Dylan16807 3y ago

I'm pretty sure I've seen multiple critiques that this specific law is in fact a link tax, and doesn't care if there are previews or not. Is that wrong? Sure, google currently has previews, and a law could be written to target previews, but I don't think this law targets previews.

SiempreViernes 3y ago
It does target previews very explicitly, but it also has a much broader condition that I imagine is there to prevent Google and others from making previews something technically not provided by them but instead created by some payload they give the users of their website.

nradov 3y ago

How many characters of preview would be reasonable? 50? 100?

soganess 3y ago
Why would you even use number of characters? A better criteria is: what fraction of people does it stop from visiting the source (because they got the information they were looking for from the summary). Yes, yes that system has it's own problems, but it is more holistic that string.length().
- nradov 3y ago
  Determining that fraction would require the search engine to run a series of A/B tests with varying preview lengths, and keep detailed records of test results. That seems like an unreasonable burden.
  - kridsdale1 3y ago
    That’s exactly the kind of activity the google is doing every single day, thousands of them in parallel.
CivBase 3y ago
How much am I allowed to quote from a book before I'm considered a pirate?
- nradov 3y ago
  In the US we have fairly clear guidelines for fair use of copyrighted materials such as books. Rules in Canada may be different. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

gspencley 3y ago

This is a popular myth about the way the law works in Canada. The myth may be based on how the Australian version works, I wouldn't know. But here in Canada, this is the relevant text of the bill: > digital news intermediary means an online communications platform, including a search engine or social media service, that is subject to the legislative authority of Parliament and that makes news content produced by news outlets available to persons in Canada "Making available" includes just links. In other words, there is no qualifier in the bill what-so-ever that requires that previews and snippets be extracted and provided. A single link with no text or any other content whatever qualifies as "making available." Here is the entire text of the bill: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-18/royal-assent https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-18/royal-a...

Nextgrid 3y ago
> makes news content [...] available That sounds like a simple link wouldn't count?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- gspencley 3y ago
  I suppose I could have included other "relevant" sections of the bill. But there's a reason I linked to the full text. > "Making available of news content (2) For the purposes of this Act, news content is made available if (a) the news content, or any portion of it, is reproduced; or (b) access to the news content, or any portion of it, is facilitated by any means, including an index, aggregation or ranking of news content." So not only is there no qualifier saying that content needs to be reproduced, but (b) specifically says that "facilitating" access BY ANY MEANS counts as "making available."
  - kevingadd 3y ago
    Indexes don't work without consuming the news content first in order to build the index, right? So it's reasonable to argue that a news search index is a derived work that draws some amount of value from the source news content. Without the news sites offering their news for free to google's spider, google's index would be useless. You could make a similar argument for aggregators since they usually display excerpts and thumbnails. Ranking seems harder to justify.

brushfoot 3y ago

The act targets more than content previews. Notice (b): > (2) For the purposes of this Act, news content is made available if > (a) the news content, or any portion of it, is reproduced; or > (b) access to the news content, or any portion of it, is facilitated by any means, including an index, aggregation or ranking of news content.

jsnell 3y ago

Except that the actual text of the law does not match your claim. It's about "facilitating access to news content by any means" including an "index" or "aggregation". Not about reproducing large chunks of the original content. And it should be pretty obvious that this is the case. If your interpretation was correct, Meta would not have removed Canadian news sources entirely. They'd just have removed the previews (hell, the news companies could have removed the previews themselves; they already have the controls for that).

llm_nerd 3y ago
>If your interpretation was correct, Meta would not have removed Canadian news sources entirely. Meta's actions prove absolutely nothing. I could similarly say that Google didn't remove any news, therefore the law has zero effect? Meta has, for months in advance of anything coming into force, embargoed Canadian news and replaced it with an appeal to the reader. That is political action, and it seems to have failed given that the government didn't blink. Now that Google has an agreement, it looks especially silly. If Meta continues their embargo of Canadian news, personally I consider that a good thing. The Canadian public accepting that Meta is not a good source or "homepage" for news is a wonderful outcome of all of this.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  I welcome it for the opposite reason. The few powerful families that control the news cartel in Canada need less reach.
  - SiempreViernes 3y ago
    You "welcome" media control going from a "few families" to a single person?
    - ipaddr 3y ago
      When you mute corporate media all of these little voices get louder.

CivBase 3y ago

Are news articles considered intellectual property, like books? If so, wouldn't it already be considered piracy for Google to copy and redistribute significant portions of the articles? If so - and if this law is not actually a "link tax" like you claim - then what is this law really preventing?