4 ms·

This is like watching dinosaurs attempting to do physics. Everytime they hear Google mention the idea of 'opt out if you don't like it', they start crying 'Pub

This is like watching dinosaurs attempting to do physics. Everytime they hear Google mention the idea of 'opt out if you don't like it', they start crying 'Publishers should not have to choose between protecting their copyrights and shunning the search-engine databases that map the Internet'. So they want google to crawl their pages, and then pay them something on top for indexing them. That's like asking the police to protect your neighborhood and then charging them a monthly fee on top for the policing. It's this ridiculous sense of entitlement that's the most sickening out of all this.

stcredzero 17y ago
ridiculous sense of entitlement Isn't that one of the portents of a revolution? Usually someone has some form of cognitive blinders on, so they don't see the impending disaster or at least the implications that will allow them to gracefully navigate it. Also read as: Isn't this a sign of some big opportunity? To mangle a physics metaphor, tortured thinking is often a sign of something containing lots of potential energy, like a spring under compression or perhaps a section of continental crust. There may be a potential to profit when the energy is released. (Also the potential to get mashed up in the tumult.)
anamax 17y ago
> they start crying 'Publishers should not have to choose between protecting their copyrights and shunning the search-engine databases that map the Internet'. And they don't have to choose. Google search results don't include very much of the content so a user has to click on the link to go to their site to see said content. They're free to do whatever they want to do to protect content on their site. They're free to do whatever they want to do to monetize said content. When pushed, their complaints seem to be: (1) when they implement protections, users go elsewhere (2) They can't get enough ad revenue from their pages. (3) Other folks "steal" their content and google will find said stolen content and help users find it. (In many cases, said other "copies" are completely legit. The sneer quotes are because they object when someone else reports the same news.) (4) Google makes money online and we're not, and since we're providing content and Google is just telling folks how to find it, Google is clearly cheating somehow.
amalcon 17y ago
Yeah, I'm amazed by this. The "If you don't like it, just opt out" policy is basically a polite way of saying "We will de-list you before paying for the privilege of pointing users your way." I don't see how anyone could argue that doing this would be outside Google's rights. I'd be interested to see how long big papers like the NY Times, W. Post, et al, would react when measures like this were passed -- and people started getting their news from smaller, local papers instead, because that's where Google sends them.

stcredzero 17y ago

ridiculous sense of entitlement Isn't that one of the portents of a revolution? Usually someone has some form of cognitive blinders on, so they don't see the impending disaster or at least the implications that will allow them to gracefully navigate it. Also read as: Isn't this a sign of some big opportunity? To mangle a physics metaphor, tortured thinking is often a sign of something containing lots of potential energy, like a spring under compression or perhaps a section of continental crust. There may be a potential to profit when the energy is released. (Also the potential to get mashed up in the tumult.)

anamax 17y ago

> they start crying 'Publishers should not have to choose between protecting their copyrights and shunning the search-engine databases that map the Internet'. And they don't have to choose. Google search results don't include very much of the content so a user has to click on the link to go to their site to see said content. They're free to do whatever they want to do to protect content on their site. They're free to do whatever they want to do to monetize said content. When pushed, their complaints seem to be: (1) when they implement protections, users go elsewhere (2) They can't get enough ad revenue from their pages. (3) Other folks "steal" their content and google will find said stolen content and help users find it. (In many cases, said other "copies" are completely legit. The sneer quotes are because they object when someone else reports the same news.) (4) Google makes money online and we're not, and since we're providing content and Google is just telling folks how to find it, Google is clearly cheating somehow.

amalcon 17y ago

Yeah, I'm amazed by this. The "If you don't like it, just opt out" policy is basically a polite way of saying "We will de-list you before paying for the privilege of pointing users your way." I don't see how anyone could argue that doing this would be outside Google's rights. I'd be interested to see how long big papers like the NY Times, W. Post, et al, would react when measures like this were passed -- and people started getting their news from smaller, local papers instead, because that's where Google sends them.