3 ms·

Yes! The only argument I could ever get out of supporters of this law was "but they're billion-dollar corporations, they should pay their fair share!" Well fi

Yes! The only argument I could ever get out of supporters of this law was "but they're billion-dollar corporations, they should pay their fair share!" Well fine, then adjust the corporate tax rate however you like -- but don't be surprised when the corporations you just described as self-interested and greedy react in the obvious way to a brand new, explicitly created economic disincentive.

nemothekid 2y ago
>"but they're billion-dollar corporations, they should pay their fair share!" I don't think this is an invalid argument. This is arguable how YouTube works. One thing that is very interesting about Meta is that they have side-stepped the need to actually invest in content. There's nothing wrong with saying "my content drove eyeballs to your platform, so give me a cut of the ad revenue". I think the bigger issue is, we have decided the marginal cost of journalism is nearly 0
- Spivak 2y ago
  YouTube pays because they're displaying copyrighted works. I don't think even the worst case— displaying opengraph tags that sites have to opt into, meets the bar for reproduction of a copyrighted work. I mean we're talking about linking here. It's not that the marginal cost of journalism is a pittance, but that the marginal value to a social network of links to a few news sites is actually zero. I would take a bet that if social networks just up and banned all external links period it would be at worst revenue neutral.
  - nemothekid 2y ago
    >YouTube pays because they're displaying copyrighted works. I think this is a distinction without a difference. YouTube paid for content long before they got serious about IP. Similarly, TikTok had to adopt the same mindset with the Creator fund. More seriously, the reason why Google pays for content is not because they are billion dollar content, it's because the marginal cost for video is greater than 0, and if they didn't pay for it, the content simply wouldn't exist. However, news article pretty much spawn out of thin air. It exists despite the tech giants not paying for it.
  - hackerbeat 2y ago
    Pro photos cost a lot of money to use and FB just gets them for free. Why? Also, big news corps have lots of correspondents and offices around the globe, which are expensive too.
    - seryoiupfurds 2y ago
      > Pro photos cost a lot of money to use and FB just gets them for free. Why? a) Because the photographer uploaded it, granting a license to display it under the TOS b) Because someone else uploaded it without permission and Facebook is protected by DMCA safe harbor provisions so long as they remove it upon request > Also, big news corps have lots of correspondents and offices around the globe, which are expensive too. Lots of things are expensive without creating some obligation for an unrelated third party to pay you for it.
      - hackerbeat 2y ago
        FB should still not get all these things for free.
        seryoiupfurds 2y ago
        So Facebook should be obliged to pay you every time you upload a photo? Anyone with a camera will be a millionaire by tomorrow morning. And the government did choose to require Facebook to pay for the news. Facebook decided the price wasn't worth it, so now they no longer allow news on their platform. They aren't getting anything for free. Fair and square.
        Eisenstein 2y ago
        Responding to 'it seems fair to ask for treatment that other media authors get' with 'lets forget all nuance and adopt the most extreme position one could take' by comparing people who sell their work for a living with people who post pictures of themselves for attention is not helpful and does not make your point stronger.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

nemothekid 2y ago

>"but they're billion-dollar corporations, they should pay their fair share!" I don't think this is an invalid argument. This is arguable how YouTube works. One thing that is very interesting about Meta is that they have side-stepped the need to actually invest in content. There's nothing wrong with saying "my content drove eyeballs to your platform, so give me a cut of the ad revenue". I think the bigger issue is, we have decided the marginal cost of journalism is nearly 0

Spivak 2y ago
YouTube pays because they're displaying copyrighted works. I don't think even the worst case— displaying opengraph tags that sites have to opt into, meets the bar for reproduction of a copyrighted work. I mean we're talking about linking here. It's not that the marginal cost of journalism is a pittance, but that the marginal value to a social network of links to a few news sites is actually zero. I would take a bet that if social networks just up and banned all external links period it would be at worst revenue neutral.
- nemothekid 2y ago
  >YouTube pays because they're displaying copyrighted works. I think this is a distinction without a difference. YouTube paid for content long before they got serious about IP. Similarly, TikTok had to adopt the same mindset with the Creator fund. More seriously, the reason why Google pays for content is not because they are billion dollar content, it's because the marginal cost for video is greater than 0, and if they didn't pay for it, the content simply wouldn't exist. However, news article pretty much spawn out of thin air. It exists despite the tech giants not paying for it.
- hackerbeat 2y ago
  Pro photos cost a lot of money to use and FB just gets them for free. Why? Also, big news corps have lots of correspondents and offices around the globe, which are expensive too.
  - seryoiupfurds 2y ago
    > Pro photos cost a lot of money to use and FB just gets them for free. Why? a) Because the photographer uploaded it, granting a license to display it under the TOS b) Because someone else uploaded it without permission and Facebook is protected by DMCA safe harbor provisions so long as they remove it upon request > Also, big news corps have lots of correspondents and offices around the globe, which are expensive too. Lots of things are expensive without creating some obligation for an unrelated third party to pay you for it.
    - hackerbeat 2y ago
      FB should still not get all these things for free.
      - seryoiupfurds 2y ago
        So Facebook should be obliged to pay you every time you upload a photo? Anyone with a camera will be a millionaire by tomorrow morning. And the government did choose to require Facebook to pay for the news. Facebook decided the price wasn't worth it, so now they no longer allow news on their platform. They aren't getting anything for free. Fair and square.
        Eisenstein 2y ago
        Responding to 'it seems fair to ask for treatment that other media authors get' with 'lets forget all nuance and adopt the most extreme position one could take' by comparing people who sell their work for a living with people who post pictures of themselves for attention is not helpful and does not make your point stronger.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]