4 ms·

-- Media companies - television, radio and newspapers - have complained for years that Google takes colossal and growing amounts of net advertising revenues, wh

-- Media companies - television, radio and newspapers - have complained for years that Google takes colossal and growing amounts of net advertising revenues, while investing relatively little in the gathering of news or the making of television and radio. I don't get this argument at all. Google uses advertising to gather news content via web search. It sounds like, if they started reporting on news, the media would complain about Google paying 3x what everyone else can afford and stealing all the talent. -- Owners of small independent coffee shops are not exactly huge fans of Starbucks. Studies have shown that Starbucks has actually increased the quantity of viable coffee shops in neighborhoods. Is this something different in England? The Gov't not getting taxes is strictly the fault of the Gov't for allowing the loopholes to exist and be exploited. I'm sure though, that this article isn't claiming that none of the employees of Starbucks doesn't get taxed. I think it would behoove the article writer to study and research what has happened on other parts of the world. Of course, Amazon isn't really good for B&M bookstores and that is a legitimate fear, but the rest are non-issues. I really don't get the Google argument at all.

lmm 14y ago
>I don't get this argument at all. The argument, not that I agree with it, is: there is a finite pool of advertising dollars. By taking them and spending them on other stuff, Google is cutting the funding of news/television/radio. It's like pg's suggestion that the invention of the camera may have damaged art by depriving artists of "day job"s painting portraits. >Studies have shown that Starbucks has actually increased the quantity of viable coffee shops in neighborhoods. Is this something different in England? I doubt it. But there are still many owners of small coffee shops who hate Starbucks - mostly the ones who can't compete because their coffee is terrible. >The Gov't not getting taxes is strictly the fault of the Gov't for allowing the loopholes to exist and be exploited. And now the Gov't is taking action to correct that.
- DominikR 14y ago
  Well, if Google's efficiency is the problem they should consider banning all agricultural machinery. There is untapped job potential for up to 90% of the population! Or we could start building pyramids again - with bare hands!
  - lmm 14y ago
    Please, read and think a little before jumping on your strawmen. The allegation is not that google is being more efficient and thereby reducing employment. The worry is that there will be much less news/television/radio because google has removed its primary source of funding. (If you believe the purpose of all things is economic optimization then this won't concern you, but many consider news/television/radio to be valuable for their own sakes)
    - DominikR 14y ago
      > (If you believe the purpose of all things is economic optimization then this won't concern you, but many consider news/television/radio to be valuable for their own sakes) I do not consider news/television/radio to be inherently valuable - it's creation and distribution of content that I consider to be valuable.
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      I'm not sure I buy the premise. It's not Google (the company), it's the internet as a whole. More competition for news reduces margins. Suppose Google search was a grant-funded nonprofit operation with no ads. How would that improve the condition of news reporters?
      - lmm 14y ago
        It's not Google's search so much as adsense. The argument is that companies with ad budgets would no longer be spending them on google ads, so they'd direct a greater amount of money towards buying newspaper ads. So prices for ad space in newspapers would rise, and newspapers would have more money (and there would be more newspapers, as previously unprofitable niches became profitable) and spend that on reporters.
        AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        Google News doesn't even have ads though, so that can only be referring to search and apps and the like. I mean it seems like they could just as well be arguing "billboards are destroying journalism" because the money companies spend on billboards (or direct mail, or telemarketing, etc.) are marketing dollars that could instead have gone to supporting newspapers if those alternatives didn't exist.

lmm 14y ago

>I don't get this argument at all. The argument, not that I agree with it, is: there is a finite pool of advertising dollars. By taking them and spending them on other stuff, Google is cutting the funding of news/television/radio. It's like pg's suggestion that the invention of the camera may have damaged art by depriving artists of "day job"s painting portraits. >Studies have shown that Starbucks has actually increased the quantity of viable coffee shops in neighborhoods. Is this something different in England? I doubt it. But there are still many owners of small coffee shops who hate Starbucks - mostly the ones who can't compete because their coffee is terrible. >The Gov't not getting taxes is strictly the fault of the Gov't for allowing the loopholes to exist and be exploited. And now the Gov't is taking action to correct that.

DominikR 14y ago
Well, if Google's efficiency is the problem they should consider banning all agricultural machinery. There is untapped job potential for up to 90% of the population! Or we could start building pyramids again - with bare hands!
- lmm 14y ago
  Please, read and think a little before jumping on your strawmen. The allegation is not that google is being more efficient and thereby reducing employment. The worry is that there will be much less news/television/radio because google has removed its primary source of funding. (If you believe the purpose of all things is economic optimization then this won't concern you, but many consider news/television/radio to be valuable for their own sakes)
  - DominikR 14y ago
    > (If you believe the purpose of all things is economic optimization then this won't concern you, but many consider news/television/radio to be valuable for their own sakes) I do not consider news/television/radio to be inherently valuable - it's creation and distribution of content that I consider to be valuable.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    I'm not sure I buy the premise. It's not Google (the company), it's the internet as a whole. More competition for news reduces margins. Suppose Google search was a grant-funded nonprofit operation with no ads. How would that improve the condition of news reporters?
    - lmm 14y ago
      It's not Google's search so much as adsense. The argument is that companies with ad budgets would no longer be spending them on google ads, so they'd direct a greater amount of money towards buying newspaper ads. So prices for ad space in newspapers would rise, and newspapers would have more money (and there would be more newspapers, as previously unprofitable niches became profitable) and spend that on reporters.
      - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        Google News doesn't even have ads though, so that can only be referring to search and apps and the like. I mean it seems like they could just as well be arguing "billboards are destroying journalism" because the money companies spend on billboards (or direct mail, or telemarketing, etc.) are marketing dollars that could instead have gone to supporting newspapers if those alternatives didn't exist.