You must log in or register to comment.

Barf_The_Mawg t1_j9x0roa wrote

So Canadian news networks want google to pay them, to advertise for them? Am i missing something, because this is insane troll logic.


mf864 t1_j9z137k wrote

Yes. Because somehow Google pointing to their news sites is supposedly hurting them and taking money from them.

Also google stopping this practice that they say hurts the news companies is also evil and wrong of Google as well.

The only morally correct course is to be forced to link to sites you don't want to pay for by force of the Canadian government.

It's kinda like if copyright law was just created and the idea that you would just not use copyrighted content instead of paying for it is seen as evil and subverting copyright law.


Catzillaneo t1_j9yf7so wrote

Worked in Australia if I remember correctly so now everyone will want a part of the pie. That being said unless I know it will be more than a fluff article it will be unlikely that I will click the direct link just to waste time.


mdielmann t1_ja14mor wrote

You say this like various news agencies in America didn't try the same thing. I'm sure this will end the same way.


Quietbutgrumpy t1_j9zmywz wrote

Yes you are missing something. Original content is copyright protected so they should be paying anyway.


mf864 t1_ja0twwf wrote

So why is google deciding their content isn't worth paying for (and no longer using it in results) bad exactly?

If the harm is "stealing" content and costing news companies money by doing so how is not using that content bad?


Quietbutgrumpy t1_ja0w71h wrote

This is about canadian news content. I don't think we want or need a lot of foreign content , which is what they give us now.


mf864 t1_ja0xlr1 wrote

What? This is about forcing google to pay to use Canadian news in search results because they are making money off ads in the search.

Now they are mad that google decides not to use those Canadian news sources in their search results anymore.

If the "harm" was using the content (and thereby taking money that would have gone to those news sources) why would not using it be bad?


Quietbutgrumpy t1_ja2x20k wrote

This is NOT about making them use Canadian news but making them pay for it, as they are supposed to anyway. If they choose not to use Canadian content, do you really want to support them? Google is trying to influence gov't policy with this tactic, as they did unsuccessfully elsewhere.


rookierook00000 t1_ja12bct wrote

Man, makes it sound like Canada is becoming a worse place to visit, let alone live in, day by day.


Heres_your_sign t1_j9xettp wrote

Yeah, what they do is repackage the content, that's way different than paying for clicks.


paleo_joe t1_j9yida6 wrote

The arrogance of many e-companies is astounding. Basically, “we write code so we’re above the law.”

We’ve seen financial barons running amuck before, in the industrial revolution. No one wins except the bankers and capitalists, but poor people love to think that maybe they too can be unimaginably wealthy.


UntiedStatMarinCrops t1_j9z2ue9 wrote

This means Google won't show most search results because they don't want to pay for them. It's a stupid law lol.


noorbeast t1_j9ww3yx wrote

As an Aussie I don't totally agree about some aspects of what was done here to start to bring Google/Meta to heal, but a couple of things to note:

Payment related to content to sustain a competitive market is not a payment for links, it is a recognition that Google and other big tech financially benefits and exploits the content of others for that financial benefit, often within highly controlled and manipulated eco systems.

Secondly, since the introduction of legislation Australia, and despite Google's heavy handed scare tactics, same with Meta, the sky has not fallen, agreements are in place and from the consumer perspective, other than the FUD tactics at the time, nothing has really changed since there is some national legislation.

In my view big tech can and should be regulated, particularly in circumstances where the underlying business model is profit from harm.

Despite doom propaganda, the net is not gong to collapse just because some necessary legislation is required. Rather, common democratic common sense and controls should prevail over corporate paid lobbyists, particularly when the latter are carefully controlled messaging via third parties.

The current big tech opposition to considering and introducing democratic based controls reminds be of the efforts by the tobacco industry to stall legislation, once it was known the product caused significant harm.


LiberalFartsMajor t1_j9wz6zq wrote

Right off the bat, this is wrong.

>Google and other big tech financially benefits and exploits the content of others for that financial benefit, often within highly controlled and manipulated eco systems.

No they don't. Any website can direct Google not to index them if they don't want to be linked, this would destroy their traffic from Google though. These media companies want to have their cake and eat it too when what they should be doing is dying in a corner quietly.


noorbeast t1_j9x9e5t wrote

Indexing, and associated ad model revenue, are directly linked, Google search and associated ad revenue would be nothing without the content of others.

I do agree media companies want to have their cake and eat it too, but that is a separate matter from the need to regulate big tech, particularly the profit from harm business model, and the efforts by big tech to manipulate and threaten when it comes to the right of nation states to set whatever laws they deem appropriate for their citizens.


KSRandom195 t1_j9y6c6e wrote

The problem is this is a law that dictates the formation of a civil contract between private entities.

If news companies want to negotiate a contract with Google and co that has Google pay them to link to their content, let them do that. However, they’ve been unsuccessful at that because they have no leverage. If they delink from Google they stop getting traffic from Google, so they actually lose revenue.

I’d agree that if Google were causing harm regulation would be appropriate. But if the website tells Google to not index them they start losing revenue strongly suggests Google is not doing harm to the website being linked, but is instead providing a mechanism for revenue.

And even if regulation were appropriate, it should not be regulation that mandates a civil contract between two private entities. It should be, “Google cannot link to news sites.” By mandating a civil contract between two private entities it gives artificial leverage to the news companies, which can give unreasonable demands and Google is forced to accept.

Again, the news companies don’t want that outcome because it causes them to lose revenue. So this is only about the news companies having their cake and eating it too.


maracle6 t1_j9xdgm9 wrote

Google’s currently complying with the law so I guess all is well. If they must pay to link content then they can also not pay to not link the content.


KSRandom195 t1_j9y6i1k wrote

IIRC the law in Australia made it illegal to not link the content. You legally are required to link to it, and pay for the privilege.


mf864 t1_ja0u9fe wrote

Which is crazy. That is lke having a law that mandates YouTube reviewers use copyrighted content from the media they are reviewing and pay for it because those reviewers are making money on the content they are reviewing.

Or even more accurate, not reviewing media you don't have permission to use copyrighted content is not allowed and you are forced to pay to review media you don't even want to review.


mf864 t1_j9z1nuq wrote

Ok. Then why is Canada mad google isn't linking to Canadian need sites anymore?

This is like complaining that someone decides not to use copyrighted material instead of paying for it. You don't have a right to someone's content and they don't have a right to force you to use and pay for their content either.