• woelkchen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    9 days ago

    Big tech needs to be stopped yesterday. This literally has china great firewall energy and I hate it.

    This is one of the rare occasions I’m siding with Google. The news outlets are claiming that they should be paid money for those result snippets. It’s not because I’m caring for Google so much but because that stance hurts small search engines.

    • cbarrick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      EU: You have to pay to show our news.

      Google: Ok. We won’t show your news.

      EU: Pikachu face

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        9 days ago

        That’s what basically happened in Germany like 10, 15 years ago when the first publisher had that idea. Its news stories would still show up in search results but only the headline, not that text snippet and no thumbnail image. These results were less attractive to users, so traffic from Google to those web sites crashed down by like 80, 90 percent.

        In the end the publishers gave Google a free license to reproduce text snippets and thumbnails. The tightened copyright law provision wasn’t repealed. Small search engines without leverage still (AFAIK to this day) have to pay.

        So Google pays nothing, publishers earn nothing, upstart search engines can’t afford the fees, and so Google leaves even more in power because of a law not even they wanted.

      • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        But, is this bad? Google makes a crap-ton of revenue compared to publishers who are now struggling with AI content competition. They need revenue to pay journalists.

        Hard to define the good guys on this one.

        Note: It’s also a misrepresentation. The EU asked Google to do this.

        • cbarrick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          The EU gave Google an option: pay or take down the content. The latter option was a bluff, and Google called them on it.

          I don’t think this will hurt Google at all.

          But it will certainly drive less traffic to these news sites if they are banned from Google. And that will hurt the news sites.

          • Zangoose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            The problem is that it won’t stop people from using Google. Most people probably wouldn’t even notice aside from having to spend more time searching for local things, which incidentally will give Google more ad money.

            The average person probably doesn’t know that search engines other than Google or Bing (or maybe Yahoo if they’re old enough) even exist. As much as it worries me that most of Firefox’s revenue comes from having Google as the default search engine, regulating that practice might actually give other search engines a chance to be seen.

    • Lennny@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 days ago

      Not wanting to appear on Google is how we’re going to get EVEN more dailymail type shit.

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      Laws need to be different for monopolies and large player. Stop the rich from using the small as human shield for their grotesqie practice.

    • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Unless I’ve misunderstood the law, it doesn’t hurt small engines, because small search engines don’t have to pay.

        • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          That does sound pretty bad. I guess it really highlights the power of a monopoly. Businesses may rely on each other, but if one relies more, then they pay all costs due to necessity while the other pays nothing because they can easily outlast the pain.

          • atrielienz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            It could be different. But different doesn’t necessarily mean better unless we design it to be better. It’s so hard as a little guy to get a foothold in search without one of the big 2.