3 ms·
Note that Google decided to pay $100M per annum because of this law. So it seems lawmakers successfully chose close to the maximal amount. Much higher and F
by bryanlarsen 2y ago
Note that Google decided to pay $100M per annum because of this law. So it seems lawmakers successfully chose close to the maximal amount. Much higher and Facebook's example indicates that Google would likely have not paid. Much lower and even both paying would have been less than $100M p.a.
- o11c 2y agoIn other words, it sounds like the subgoal of "subsidize the news" is partially being reached. The open question is whether "subsidize the news" is sufficient for society's real goal, "trustworthy news".
- paxys 2y agoThe two aren't really comparable. Google runs a news service, and shows ads on that service. Google News isn't a feasible business without crawling and aggregating the content that media organizations provide, so signing deals with them (whether forced or not) makes sense. Facebook meanwhile would have to pay publishers for news links that you and I post on our feeds. That is much closer to a shakedown, and the service can work just fine (better, one may argue) without this category of links. So regardless of the dollar amount saying no is the better option for them.
- goosedragons 2y agoIIRC Facebook would have had to pay for links posted by the media companies themselves too. It was ridiculous and poorly thought out law.