> Ad blockers today also try to fool the site and work around anti-adblock, which I think isn't fair to the sites.
You're right, it's not fair, but there is no fair in war, and make no mistake, this is what it is, a war for humanities freedom and dignity and you're on the wrong side of it. My country spend decades and a significant amount of its resources building a giant surveillance network meant to oppress and terrorize it's people but because it was 20th century tech, it was orders of magnitude less powerful than what you do(it relied on human informants, usually extorted into cooperating because somebody informed on them). We dismantled that machine because it was extremely dangerous to the free society we decided to build and we will eventually dismantle your bigger badder machine as well. Make sure you save enough for retirement.
> Why? Why can't we ask whether "privacy" is so precious that we should preserve it at any cost?
I would suggest opening up one of the many books that deal with the history of various police states of central, eastern and southern Europe of the last 100 years or so. This continent is scarred to the bone by authoritarianism, millions of nameless graves and all that, if that's not a good enough reason I don't know what to say more. Ignorance of the past is deadly.
China is a genocidal state, and the supposedly hundreds of millions of supporters of that state policy in China are also genocidal by definition. I see no reason not to disrespect them. This is not "a difference of opinion" it's an ethnic cleansing, not something you brush off to polite disagreement. Yes, absolutely ostracize them, that's what you do to people who support genocide. 100% of the time any civilized person should resist them in any way they can.
Congratulations to the EU commission and the EU parliament on achieving the exact opposite of what they wanted to do despite being told this would happen and despite it actually already happening in Spain and Germany. It's not like this is any kind of surprise, it's the only logical thing that could've happened. I am still extremely bitter about the dirty way this law was passed, the lies, the deliberate lies by the commission, the nasty response EU politicians had at protesters and the absolute contempt they had for young people saying they we're entitled children trained by internet giants to expect free things. I watched the debates in parliament and there were MEPs who actually said that. The horsetrading France and Germany did over Russian gas in order to get a deal on this law. That disgusting blog post the EU commission published calling people who disagreed with them bots and brainwashed and positioning themselves literally as knights out to slay the google dragon. It's all horribly corrupt and cynical. I'm sure many young people got the message that their leaders view them with such absolute contempt and open hatred and I fear the consequences for Europe.
Your reaction is over the top IMO. I'm quite perplex about this law myself but I think you're missing the point.
You comment reads a bit like "the workers wanted a raise, now they're on strike and they get less money than previously, achieving the exact opposite of what they wanted to do!" It's technically true of course, but I think they hope that Google will suffer enough from this decision that they'll have to reconsider in the future. Alternatively, they hope that people will still want to get French news and will move to other websites which will accept to give money to the news organizations.
I'm really not sure that it's going to work on either count but on the other hand it's clear that many EU constituents (those who actually pay taxes and employ people in the EU) felt that something had to be done.
>the absolute contempt they had for young people saying they we're entitled children trained by internet giants to expect free things
I mean, if anything I agree with this statement, except I'd put "free" between quotes. The ad-driven business model is a cancer as far as I'm concerned.
> but on the other hand it's clear that many EU constituents (those who actually pay taxes and employ people in the EU) felt that something had to be done.
Why do you think the EU constituents had anything to do with these laws? The laws were incentivised by the publishers. The crux in the EU is that the biggest part of the industry see the internet just as infrastructure and couldn't care less about net neutrality, censorship, equal access, or ad revenues. The only industries affected by those issues are tech companies and publishers.
The tech companies have a pro liberalisation stance while the publishers hate the internet's guts. Now guess where countries with strong and influential publishers and a nearly non existent tech industry are leaning to. That publications like Süddeutsche, Zeit, and FAZ have been portraying the internet as a bad and dangerous thing for decades now, doesn't help.
Well, we can at least have solace in the fact that these are the exact same outlets that are suffering financial losses since at least 10 years. They are dying a slow death and this is their final straw -- not that it will do them any good, to the contrary. Good riddance!
Is there any efficient alternative to big newspapers with decades long editorial reputation?
I'm not pitying the useless money grab ad-infested publications, but they were the ones that actually spent on good journalism.
Though it would be good to see a lot more numbers/data about this. Also probably with globalisation the market simply consolidates. There's no need for more than a handful big "trust anchors" for news. The local news problem is tougher to crack though :/
> ...they hope that Google will suffer enough from this decision that they'll have to reconsider in the future...
Google loses literally nothing.
Google doesn't make any money off Google news. They make money sending traffic to advertisers, not to news sites. And the Google news page doesn't run ads. It's just a free service.
The only benefit to Google is that it makes their brand better.
This has been the irony all along; Google's been running a 100% free (NOT ad supported) service to help users find news sites, and the news sites demand to be compensated. So OF COURSE this is going to be the response; there was never any money to share.
Right, so like I said, their only benefit is to their brand. It preserves the expectation that Google is the best place to find everything.
And the French law applies to all companies in Google's position, not just to Google. So the there's still nowhere better than Google for users to go.
The only losers in this deal are the French news agencies, and perhaps French users if you consider them worse off for not finding French news sources.
No it isn't "like you said". You made the absolutely absurd claim that they don't make any money off it. Even if we accept the ridiculous notion that it's just brand, that's still a very valuable input.
So French users go to French media sites. I'm not really seeing the big loser here beyond Google, which is exactly why they've fought this so hard and for so long (despite, by your take, making no money on it).
I don't think that the alternative to French users on Google News are French news sites. I think the alternative is a non-European news site on Google News instead.
That's not true. The entire reason Google hosts these "snippets" on their search results page is to keep users on that page and not clicking through to other sites. With this they lose that ability.
You're talking as if Google News is the only affected site here. It isn't: the vast majority of this traffic is on search results pages. Which Google does make vast amounts of money from.
Are you saying this out of theory or experience? Anecdotally as a user I can tell you that when I see a compelling snippet, I am more likely to click, not less.
While the quick answers on the right of Google search results may be designed to keep people from clicking through, I have never seen that feature used for a news article (for me is is usually stackoverflow and Wikipedia where this has an impact on click throughs.)
I don't think this is the case for search or news. The "snippets" under a search result make me more likely to click through and really don't ever provide enough info to allow me to skip reading the page.
Since your assertion runs counter to my (and others) experience, I hope you have some actual data to back this up? Perhaps a website that added a robots.txt to prevent snippet collection and saw an improvement in traffic from search?
google serves AMP websites whenever possible (from Google News) as they've scared publishers into adopting their standard. AMP strips traditional advertising networks and monetization options from the website and is only compatible with Google's Ad Network.
So Google gets to advance the dominance of AMP, gets to track user behavior and does make money from Google News. If it didn't really have any value to Google and advance their agenda, it would be shutdown.
If Google provides a service, they make money off it.
In 2008, during one of the many legal battles Google has waged over Google News, Google estimated that they made $100M off of people using Google to access news. Clearly that number would be some factor larger now. Because the more people who rely upon Google for a service, the less they end up elsewhere. The more Google controls your eyeballs and is likely to capture your ad clicks.
It's the same reason Google scrapes the web and provides the top answer in their answer bubble. It's "free" and it also robs viewers from ever going to the sites actually providing the information.
Or do you think Google puts all of that engineering effort, endless lobbying and legal fights with the news community...because they're just so benevolent?
Even ignoring the captured attention, this also enables Google to prioritize news sources that are more Google friendly (e.g. use Google ad networks), and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it.
No. The vast majority of the informed peoples of the EU campaigned and pleaded them not to pass Article 13. The fact they turn around and basically call us too stupid to know what's best is just icing on the cake. They ignored the people.
Honestly, the entire institution gets what it deserves. I've never seen such an utter shambles of democracy as bad as the Article 13 one.
I mean... zooming out here, and ignoring the specifics of this case in favour of the “shape” of it—this is basically the point of representative democracy! What it’s supposed to enable, I mean. A group elects someone who’s better at statecraft than the group is; and then that elected representative uses their statecraft abilities to make choices and deals that are optimal for their constituency’s long-term benefit, but which the people could never have made on their own, because those choices don’t have a compelling narrative or “image” to garner populist sentiment. (Or, from the people’s perspective: elected representatives engage in awful horse-trading and disrespect their constituency’s opinions, and yet gradually everything gets better “somehow.”) Or: the people hire a sausage-maker, and then get mad at the process of making sausage.
Sometimes representative democracy has problems, sure; the usual generation gap between politicians and their constituencies is a big reason it takes so long for human-rights legislation (on e.g. gay marriage) to catch up with public sentiment.
But it’s still probably better than the alternatives, e.g. direct democracy. There are a lot of things you just can’t get done using direct democracy. Imagine a nation run by referendum trying to negotiate e.g. a distasteful-but-strategically-necessary wartime alliance with another nation. Sausage needs to get made; but who has the political capital to make it?
"this is basically the point of representative democracy"
Democracy is not a system to promote meritocracy. It's a system to avoid autocracy, and all other things are exernalities rising from this core purpose.
The point of democracy is to have a constant churn within a large enough powerpool to discourage formation of ruling cliques and oligarchies. It's nice if the chosen representatives are efficient and skillfull, but that's not the point of the system.
I've always thought that one the the biggest benefits of democracy was to provide a mechanism of power transfer / competition between groups of elites that uses the votes of the masses rather than the blood of the masses as a medium.
The problem with the EU is that the most important institution in it is an extra step removed compared to most representational democracies. The heads of state select the Commission, not the people nor the EU Parliament. And the Commission is the only one that can propose laws.
There are two other important problems with the system as well: voter turnout and voting in blocs (country or EU party). The reason this is a problem is that the candidates campaign as individuals, but act according to what their group tells them. Sometimes they vote along what their country votes, other times they vote along the lines off what their parliamentary group tells them. But where are the interests of the actual constituents here?
this shows that the only way to really achieve democracy is to get rid of any form of party or bloc. the elected candidates must only be responsible to the constituents that elected them and no-one else.
this is basically the point of representative democracy!
The EU isn't a democracy or even a representative democracy. Notice how lots of people wrote to their MEPs and nothing happened other than MEPs calling their voters stupid? That's because in the EU all decisions are ultimately made by the Commission. The Commission started this, the Commission made it happen and by treaty the Commission is the only body able to actually propose changes to the law.
The EU Parliament quite literally doesn't fit the dictionary definition of Parliament. There isn't any way voters can change this law by voting, not even if every party was for changing it, because even a majority of MEPs cannot change the law. But changing the law is the entire and sole purpose of politicians, so we can observe that MEPs aren't really politicians.
A group elects someone who’s better at statecraft than the group is
That has never been part of the idea of democracy. What makes you think politicians are so great at statecraft? There are no tests they have to pass, assuming you could even make such a test to begin with. What's the definition of statecraft, even?
There's no evidence politicians are smarter or better than the average voter. That's why anyone can turn up and get votes.
Or, from the people’s perspective: elected representatives engage in awful horse-trading and disrespect their constituency’s opinions, and yet gradually everything gets better “somehow.”
For a whole lot of people in the EU things are either stagnant or getting worse. Look at the dire economic performance of Italy since joining the Eurozone: was growing, since flat.
Things don't get better because people repeatedly elect politicians who are superior to themselves. Things, by and large, get better when governments shrink and stay out of things. The fate of the eastern bloc under Soviet rule and then capitalist democratic rule shows that in action (although, now they are at risk of going backwards thanks to things like Article 13).
There are a lot of things you just can’t get done using direct democracy.
Tell that to the Swiss. Most successful country on the continent, by far.
> There isn't any way voters can change this law by voting, not even if every party was for changing it, because even a majority of MEPs cannot change the law.
It's true that the EU Parliament doesn't quite work the way you want it to, however it does have the ability to "Censure" the EU Commission by a vote of no confidence:
If it did so, a new Commission President would then be nominated, which the EU Parliament could approve based on the nominee's support for a change to the law.
This would be a way of working around the fact that the EU Parliament does not formally possess legislative initiative, which you seem to think it is missing, despite the fact that the law in question was amended and approved by the parliament as part of the legislative process.
It's essentially impossible for that kind of a vote to succeed though. Requiring a two thirds majority among MEPs against the Commission is going to be very difficult, because those MEPs still have to deal with their national governments and parties at home. The Council is the one that put the Commission in place and the Council is the national governments.
New President would be nominated ... by the same people who nominated the last one.
The Parliament doesn't get to choose the leader. They can only ratify or delay the decision of those who do. That makes them useless. Even if they fire the entire Commission, the Council will just immediately re-appoint a new President who has exactly the same views and policies.
This kind of "you may be a nuisance but not change anything" arrangement is everywhere in the EU's structure. It's infantilising. It says you can cry if you like and get some attention for a while, but ultimately, the decisions aren't being made by you.
Probably because his argument is “the commission decides everything”. Except that the commission is controlled by... the democratically elected representatives of each country! So how is that not a representative democracy?
In this case actually MEPs were told who to vote for by the Council. The Parliament was presented with a vote on who to run the Commission ... which had a single name on it. The only obtains were to vote for von der Leyen or not vote at all.
It's common for europhiles to describe this sort of process as democratic because the Council is made up of national leaders. Unfortunately there's a key detail that makes this step non-functional: Council meetings are held in secrecy. No minutes or voting records are published.
How was von der Leyen selected and why? Nobody knows outside of the national leaders themselves. And there are sadly good reasons to believe that they systematically lie to their populations about what happens in those meetings. For one, Juncker himself has complained about this: leaders support a policy in private at the Council level, then go back home and tell their populations they fought against it and are being forced to do it by the EU.
Given the staggering amount of mendaciousness and duplicity the current anti-Brexit Parliament has been revealing amongst the ruling classes, I have no doubt at all Juncker's complaint is valid. But of course if the EU wanted it could easily fix this: just make Council meetings public so people can see if their leader's acts in those meetings matches their acts back home.
The other problem is the number of levels of indirection. Politicians don't base campaigns on who they'll vote for as leader of the Commission. It's "democratic" only in tortured theory.
So, if the prime minister of your country delegates all of their power to a private company (or group of non-elected people) then you'd still consider that to be a representative democracy? Especially when the only one that is allowed to propose laws and propose amendments would be that same company?
I think it's a question of how many steps removed the decision makers are from elected officials.
Would you rather they iterate towards a solution or have giant corporations calling the shots?
They're just trying to fix Google's mess, like when they have to litigate to collect taxes or when the DOJ litigates to prevent colluding to depress employee wages or when customers litigate to collect their refunds. It's Google forcing new laws and litigation, the EU is much their victim as their employees, customers and users.
Article 13 is medieval era legislation. We should be undoing copyright laws, not clamping down on the most fundamental freedoms.
I say this without jest: At least the giant corporations can be held to account - I can choose not to use their services, or decide to use an adblocker. The EU can't and I can't opt out of it.
Consumer choice can have a positive effect on giant corporations, but it can fail just as often. For example, how easy is it for average consumers to avoid websites that use tracking cookies to follow them around the web? Similarly, how many consumers care enough about the emissions of cars or power stations to base their purchasing decisions on that?
In matters such as these (and others, such as food, medicine, and transport safety), it makes more sense to have government regulation rather than relying solely on consumer pressure. Moreover, it is more efficient for businesses to have one consistent set of rules to follow, rather than a patchwork of 28 contradictory rules, and it is harder for large corporations to pressure countries if those countries are acting together as a bloc.
If you want to opt out of the EU, I'm sure there are several territories in the world that would welcome you to live there. Alternatively, you have EU protected free speech and voting rights to convince your fellow citizens that your country should end its EU membership. You just need to get enough of those citizens (and their elected representatives) to agree on what specific alternative to EU membership they want instead.
> example, how easy is it for average consumers to avoid websites that use tracking cookies to follow them around the web?
The reason nothing has been done is because the majority are uninformed or just don't care. I'd argue we still get the better end of the deal with free as in beer content.
> Moreover, it is more efficient for businesses to have one consistent set of rules to follow, rather than a patchwork of 28 contradictory rules, and it is harder for large corporations to pressure countries if those countries are acting together as a bloc.
What do you personally think is better? A huge institution with power to regulate the markets of 28 nations, or 28 independent nations?
It's not about money. I think it's too much power concentrated into a single body. Would you prefer a business-first approach for anything else?
> EU protected free speech
Not allowing parody and remix is also an attack on my free speech.
I am confused as to your point, it is SOOOO much easier to block cookies and buy an EV than it is to get citizenship in a foreign country.
That is why EU wide regulations need to be considered with more considation for the needs of EU users and less consideration for the demands of private industry lobbyists.
They're just trying to fix Google's mess, like when they have to litigate to collect taxes or when the DOJ litigates to prevent colluding to depress employee wages or when customers litigate to collect their refunds. It's Google forcing new laws and litigation, the EU is much their victim as their employees, customers and users.
None of which had anything to do with Google News and publisher demands.
You comment reads a bit like "the workers wanted a raise, now they're on strike and they get less money than previously, achieving the exact opposite of what they wanted to do!" It's technically true of course, but I think they hope that Google will suffer enough from this decision that they'll have to reconsider in the future. Alternatively, they hope that people will still want to get French news and will move to other websites which will accept to give money to the news organizations.
How exactly google will suffer? It seems to me that Google is the party that can afford to walk away and that the French news media cannot.
Google news doesn't have ads. There's no money to lose.
The whole concept France is pushing has been ludicrous all along. There's no revenue to share or for Google to lose. It's just a free service. Just free. No ads. No money.
The ads are on the search page. Not the news page.
Google doesn't provide services that provide no benefit to Google. If people can't get the news they are used to from Google News, they will get it elsewhere, and that means less engagement with Google.
Google News leads to more news being read online. Google makes money when news is read online because Google has a monopoly on online advertising. Google ONLY makes money from Google News when users click through to read articles.
Having data on online news reading habbits is a nice bonus, but the reason Google News exists is to boost ad sales to news sites.
Google can show other news sources snips, which will now get better engagement from users. Unless the EU can control Google entirely, it is the French publisher that is hurt by this, not Google.
It would be hilarious if this created a niche in the industry for French news content published outside of Europe but supported by ad content obviously tailored towards French users. Given the profitability of journalism in general, that might be a long shot.
Nope. I side with Google. Why should they pay for Agency content brandet as high quality newspaper content? Why only newspapers? This is blackmailing google.
This is using law to grant the lobby of newspapers additional revenue. And blame Google for not abiding.
> Why should they pay for Agency content brandet as high quality newspaper content?
because they're using someone elses intellectual property in the process, and that's what this law is about. Sure, the relationship goes both ways in that it increases exposure for the newspaper, but there is a very principled case to be made that Google profits for free off the intellectual creations of third parties.
The one point I agree with in your question is "why only newspapers", I think we should systematically move towards monetisation when Google indexes, reuses and displays content from third parties and incorporates them in their products.
it's not any more of a barrier to entry than the fact that spotify pays artists money and if I want to make a competitor I'd need to do that too. I don't really understand how the idea that platforms reimburse the people whose content they use is supposed to be extraordinary.
Also there is no genuine search competition anyway, so instead of waiting another 20 years I'd just be happy if Google starts paying people for the content that they use.
Spotify would have to pay artists for the right to recommend songs to users, then send those users to the artists site for purchase to be comparable.
That would be a terrible business model though. Maybe the French newspapers should join together to create a search engine of their own content, if there really is a lot of money to be made in that game.
The way that content licensing and exclusive deals work IS a huge barrier to entry for small players.
I think we need to pass legislation that prohibit exclusive content licensing and require that equivalent licensing terms are offered to all competitors (similar perhaps to rules about patent licensing when it is incorporated into a standard?)
Edit: Since Google has a near monopoly on ad networks, there is a sense in which Google already is the one paying for much of this content.
No, a lot of politicians amd lobbyists in favor of that reform had arguments that were maybe relevant 30 years ago, completely missing how media consumption has changed. And when called out, their response was deliberately hurtful, full of contempt and belittling those who - in their view - had no effin idea what this was about when in truth, even Axel Voss, the architect of the copyright reform gave factually wrong explanations of the contents of the regulation.
The politicians who were pushing this through were deliberately breaking just about every rule of civil political discourse. This is all on the record. Such behaviour it is completely out of line, but I don't know how to counter it effectively when those responsible for it have more political power and have better contacts in the media to have their views (and, in this case, lies) reported.
> but on the other hand it's clear that many EU constituents (those who actually pay taxes and employ people in the EU) felt that something had to be done
This is exactly the problem. X was something, therefore it had to be done, although it was utterly pointless.
>but on the other hand it's clear that many EU constituents (those who actually pay taxes and employ people in the EU) felt that something had to be done.
Really? Because only the Commission can propose laws and the Commission is not elected. Even MEPs get really low voter turnouts in many EU countries, because people feel that MEPs don't mean anything. I can understand it too, because MEPs seem to vote in blocs and what the people want seems to be entirely irrelevant.
Why does Google News exist? If it's to keep people using a Google property, that has value. If it's to build profiles of user interests, that has value. If it's for goodwill, that also has value.
Google believes it receives some sort of value out of their News service even if that value isn't directly in the form of advertising payments.
Google News exists so that people read more news online and Google makes more money brokering ads for online publishers. Goodwill and more data are nice benefits but have a smaller impact on Google's bottom line.
> Congratulations to the EU commission and the EU parliament on achieving the exact opposite of what they wanted to do despite being told this would happen and despite it actually already happening in Spain and Germany.
I don’t follow: what is happening is exactly what the EU wants. I fail to understand the comment here entirely. Until all countries are executing this law this is exactly what the commission predicted is going to happen.
> “The negotiations were difficult, but what counts in the end is that we have a fair and balanced result that is fit for a digital Europe,” said European Commission Vice President Andrus Ansip. “The freedoms and rights enjoyed by internet users today will be enhanced, our creators will be better remunerated for their work, and the internet economy will have clearer rules for operating and thriving.” The bill is expected to be formally approved by mid-April, after which European Union governments will have two years to include it in their national laws.
Take the claims one by one:
> The freedoms and rights enjoyed by internet users today will be enhanced
I'm not sure what freedom or right was enhanced. Maybe the rights of publishers not to have their content seen by users? But certainly the freedom and right of a news consumer in France was harmed as they have less access to news in a convenient fashion.
> our creators will be better remunerated for their work
This clearly didn't happen. Maybe people will click more, but Google is said to have performed experiments and found that not showing the text leads to a 45% decline in traffic to the website. Yes, they are likely bias and it might be a ruse, but considering how much internet giants focus on providing the least amount of friction and latency to users, I believe the sentiment is correct.
> and the internet economy will have clearer rules for operating and thriving
This is an odd claim because some smaller internet companies got exemptions and there was some horse trading with gas. Doesn't seem any clearer to assert publisher rights based on a case by case basis
> The deal was made possible after France and Germany proposed a compromise last week, giving smaller internet companies some exemptions from the rules. The compromise coincided with a separate deal in which France agreed to support Germany on a natural-gas pipeline with Russia, according to officials in Brussels and Berlin.
> Well, it was always their right (as they could use robots.txt) but now Google gives them a more fine grained control over it.
Does it? I am pretty sure Google already provided on page directives that gives sites full control of image indexing, snippet usage and even snippet length. [0]
The differences is that now all news sites are opted-out by default, a legal agreement is required to opt in, and the force of law ensures compliance.
I don't really see how this actually does ANYTHING to help anyone except lawyers. I guess it makes it harder for small aggregators to get going...but is that really a result we wanted?
> Google already provided on page directives that gives sites full control of image indexing, snippet usage and even snippet length
Yeah I heard so also as well (your link might be missing some things though), though now they can do it through an UI?
> The differences is that now all news sites are opted-out by default, a legal agreement is required to opt in, and the force of law ensures compliance.
I don't think a legal agreement is required to get back in, or it might be a simple one. Of course if you let Google show it and forget about the others then you're just encroaching its position (but hey isn't that what everybody said it would happen? tough)
> I guess it makes it harder for small aggregators to get going...but is that really a result we wanted?
Yeah... I'm actually sad Google is not asking for money to show full results for them, it would have been funnier.
They never wanted Google to show displaying snippets, as we will shortly see when the French publishers notice the plummeting page views and issue "emergency snippet licenses" to Google in order to save themselves from their own greed.
Previous discussion on this had a link to the research paper that actually measured said "plummeting" in case of Spain - the decrease in traffic was well under 20%. Just FYI.
Growth of 2-3% in anything you are actively work towards is the baseline success expectation as it is stagnant or declining otherwise. That is the equivalent of losing a decade's growth. Losing 20% of your salary would certainly qualify as losing 6 to 10 years of minimal growth expectation. It is twice that of a literal dictionary definition decimation. "Plummeting" is certainly not hyperbole.
Even a 10% can rightly be considered a "plummet" in many business contexts.
If a stock drops 10% in a day, that's gigantic. Considering how precarious the profitability of news organizations can be to begin with, a 10% drop that can't be reversed could be the difference between staying in business and folding, depending on how costs are structured.
If your traffic decreases by, say 10%, that's huge -- that's a plummet. (If your traffic decreases by 80%, you don't need adjectives anymore -- you're probably out of business now.)
They only win in this context if people use a different search engine that does pay to show snippets.
If people still use Google to find results but have to go on just title and publication to figure out what link to click which spoiler alert they already mostly do then you have 2 net effects.
Searching for news is slightly more cumbersome and resources that do allow snippets will get slightly more clicks from people who can read both.
The directive works just fine. From the perspective of the EU commission it's perfectly fine not to scrap any content of other creators and not to make it available for free. It merely states that if you scrap content from other companies, then you have to pay for the content.
The purpose of this regulation is to protect the companies and journalists who actually assemble and write the news against a predatory business model.
Google has determined that the best way to bring visitors to the newssites is by showing a few lines of the news item. Apparently google vistors are more likely to click on a link if they see a few lines of text.
This benefits the newssite, not google.
Those few lines function as an advertisement for the actual article. Usually companies have to pay for advertisements...
If the news site uses AdSense, which quite a few do, then yes. But I'm not sure if Google's extra profit is that significant. Especially when compared to the benefits the news sites get.
While Google does have Facebook as a real competitor, that competition is not on the ad networks side. Google controls the vast majority of ad networks sales (i.e. ads placed on publisher's sites)
Google makes a significant portion of the value for each ad.
> For displaying ads with AdSense for content, publishers receive 68% of the revenue recognized by Google in connection with the service. For AdSense for search, publishers receive 51% of the revenue recognized by Google. [
0]
If that was their purpose, then they failed miserably. At least they'll find that out soon enough, as page views to those news sites are almost certainly going to plummet. And when they do it will be even more clear that Googles "predatory business model" was helping get these journalists and companies views.
Protection by enforcing applicable copyright law, not in the sense of "helping someone out".
The news companies can opt to give away their content to Google for free. The directive merely gave these companies more choice, by stopping illegal web scraping without asking first.
They already had the ability to opt-out of Google scraping their articles. They already had a choice, just like they did in Germany. And the German news organizations realized views plummeted after they did this (https://searchengineland.com/german-publisher-group-sues-goo...).
This was never about choice, which they've always had, this has always been about both having their cake and eating it to. When French publishers inevitably see their traffic plummet, they will almost certainly sue Google for it.
The point is that it is always opt-in, though. There is no such thing as "use it as you like unless the copyright holder opts-out" anywhere in copyright law. You cannot just e.g. use substantial portions of someone else's texts in your own publications[1], sample a part of someone else's music for your own song, use someone else's graphics as your own, use an unlicensed font, etc., without a written permission by the copyright holder.
The EU directive merely ensures that existing laws are enforced instead of being systematically violated by large corporations.
Independently, of course, you could ask whether copyright law should be that way. I personally don't think so, and think it should be changed in various ways that strongly disfavor large corporations, but that's a completely different discussion. What I try to explain here is the rationale of the EU commission, which primarily thinks in legal terms, not my personal views about that matter.
If you ask for my personal views, I do find it appalling that large companies like Google (and Uber, Microsoft, AirBnB, etc.) continue to try to circumvent laws in ways that no small companies could get through with in court, simply because they have the business power and enough lawyers to give it a try.
[1] beyond fair use, which is very limited and does not apply int his case.
I it is not about opt-in, it is about getting both money and traffic from google. This quote from the parent linked article is very telling:
> After the passage of the law Google asked German publishers to explicitly opt-in or be excluded from search results as protection against liability. Publishers opted-in but filed an antitrust complaint, arguing they were effectively forced by Google to waive their copyrights.
If I am the reason for you, to have customers, then you could be a bit more relaxed about the fact, that I show a one- or two liner from your content. Because, that is all a snippet gives.
You want to play a role in the game? Well, then do your bidding...
"Yet the report points out that 'substitution effect' is very small in comparison to the 'market expansion effect' that aggregators cause. According to the research, aggregation services reduce search times and allow readers to consume more news overall. The NERA analysis finds that in the first few months of 2015 after the introduction of the law, publishers saw traffic fall on average more than six percent, while smaller publications saw it drop by 14 percent drop."
But Google was not the worst affected, smaller news aggregators like Meneame suffered more because they didn't have the finnancial muscle to pay even if they wanted
We don’t know how this plays out yet. This first step was quite predictable, but its effects on the overall news media landscape will take months to unwind. Will this increase the ad revenue for news sites because of increased clickthrough rates? Will it push them towards obscurity because their reporting is less available? Will it make no meaningful difference whatsoever?
Google did the same thing in Germany after a similar national version was introduced. News sites quickly noticed a significant decrease in visitors coming from Google. They then attempted to sue Google to force them to list results with snippets AND also pay for it. Courts quickly ruled against that, so news sites just decided to allow Google to list the full results again.
The end result is that the law meant to work against Google actually benefited them. News sites cannot afford to not give Google a free license, but smaller search engines face a big issue.
There was no effect on the consumer who uses google as the law was supposed to be installed August 1st 2013 but the main publishers who lobbied for the law granted google a free license 2 days before the deadline.
As far as I know google is now the only search engine who has this free license.
It's quite funny because those publishers advertised the law with some heavy criticism towards google. The whole thing was some kind of "anti-google-law". In the end they made them stronger as other portals and search engines have not been granted a free license. I always wondered if this whole thing was not intended this way to give them a better standing on google news in the end.
The EU could have learned something here just like the lobby who pushed for it again.
I'd assume the result for those who do not use google to look for news will find smaller "news" sites. Especially those who feed them fake news because every serious news site has their license rights protected by the VG Wort.
Axel Springer AG (who were the primary lobbyist for the law) actually attempted to use the law against Google in late 2014 for four of their biggest sites. It took two weeks for them to give Google a free license again. They cited a 40% loss of clicks from Google and a 80% loss from Google News as the reason.
It's not just the EU and its institutions pushing that narrative either. For example, before the European elections the BBC ran an article about all the great things the European Parliament has done which gave it credit for this and described the controversy as follows: "Supporters say the rule helps to ensure that artists, musicians and other creators are fairly compensated. But tech companies say it will destroy user-generated content." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48024400
No mention of the fact that MEPs had very little to do with the contents of the law, which was mostly shaped by shady back-room dealings between the French and German government, or of the concerns non-corporate-affiliated artists and content creators had about it screwing them over, or the bizarre voting fiasco.
While the BBC is certainly decaying in quality and balance with each passing day, I think those deals might have surfaced after the vote happened.
> No mention of the fact that MEPs had very little to do with the contents of the law, which was mostly shaped by shady back-room dealings between the French and German government
Actually a lot of MEPs participated in the discussions and their contents (which doesn't mean what you're mention didn't happen, of course it did)
Supposedly there were enough MEPs who were opposed the copyright changes that they should've been able to block them (which is pretty remarkable and almost never happens), but due to the confusing way the vote was organised some MEPs "accidentally" pressed the wrong button and voted for it instead, causing it to be passed. It's not clear whether this was in fact an accident or just plausible deniability.
It may be counterproductive but in a way those publishers always held the rights to their own work. Consequently if they want to prevent Google from showing snippets they should be able to. But maybe that should be opt out, rather than opt in. I expect most of them to request Google to use snippets again before very long in any case.
<meta name="googlebot" content="..., ..." />
These meta tags control the behavior of search engine crawling and indexing.
nosnippet - Don't show a text snippet or video preview from being shown in
the search results. For video, a static image will be shown instead, if
possible. Example: <meta name="robots" content="nosnippet">
max-snippet:[number] - Limit the text snippet length for this page to [number]
characters; specify 0 for no snippet or -1 to allow any snippet length.
It is already. And in addition to that, since 'robots.txt' is being considered to broad and too 'out of time', Google offers meta tags, that their bot evaluates. They did this long time before the EU direction.
There's been legislative elections since and not only was turnout a little better than usual, the major traditional alliances lost a lot of seats in the european parliament to the smaller less conventional ones on both sides of the spectrum. Still a long way to go but baby steps.
I mean, let's not pretend this only happens in Europe. Pinterest sued Google and got the amazing 'view image' button taken away. Didn't even take something as mighty as federal government interference.
I'm really on your side. However, note that we (assuming you're european too) are in such a shity place because we've got 0 internet giants in Europe, and so we have really no good option between tax or laissez-faire
A large portion of savvy web users are ready to switch search engines on a snap if a superior value proposition comes along; if you build it (well) they will come. The same is 10x as true for news sources.
Can Apple switch to alternative search such as DuckDuckGo or Bing without substantially upsetting customers? Perhaps with nobody really noticing or producing fanfare? I think the difference between DDG and Google is the difference in what is sufficiently compelling for customers to feel.
Similarly, can Apple quite visibly switch map providers without much difference to customers?
As for news sources I suspect people are already very promiscuous, which is part of the problem.
All the talk about Apple being all about privacy is 100% marketing. There is no way apple is going to give up $12 billion dollars a year in revenue [0] to not default to google for search.
There’s a reason why states have rules against monopolistic companies. Once a company reaches a critical mass in one sector, it becomes almost impossible to create competition, for many various reasons.
But you’re right, old european countries really never tried to think seriously about what makes them lagging so much behind the US and China.
People will absolutely switch if another search engine is substantially better. But that's hard to do because Google isn't a lazy incumbent, their search is being continually worked on and improved.
Mostly other search engines seem to try to compete based on privacy or something, and while that's nice, it's not as tangible as superior core search functionality.
Like, DuckDuckGo isn't a bad search engine, and for a lot of things it seems about equally good. But "comparably good most of the time" doesn't make for a very compelling case to switch.
It’s aggregation that is the valuable part, not the news or we wouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place and it would be newspapers that took over the world instead of google.
Aggregation of a product that is devalued the more you aggregate it. Inevitably it kills the product and you have nothing to aggregate. Google is doing that (sucking up all the ad revenue) to all kinds of publishers and i expect to see more of this.
How is Google sucking up adrev.? Publishers get revenue from Google, or they can manage ad sales however they want.
They times have changed, and it seems going back is not an option. Before Google big publishers were the default for many people, either on paper or online. Now publishers are in the headline business. Also if they write good things, people will read it still.
They lost some/much of their network effect. And sure, we can say G is sucking up revenue, but they also make it possible to advertise for whatever keyword you want, much more effectively, than publishers did. In this sense G is just a better paper, truck, road, printing press and ad-sales-house in one. Pretty hard to beat it.
This. The EU proxy war against Ireland thrown in with this utterly corrupt approach to information companies is an utter embarrassment and fully demonstrative of the complete lack of oversight of a tiny handful of people.
Excuse me, you find it ok that Google et al get all the ad money by republishing and publishers and content creators get nothing? And even go so far as spinning this into an EU corruption story, where the only alternative, and the one we're living through right now, is to rely on a monopolist for news?
Content creators get click throughs. And while I’m not sure if this is specific to me in the UK, news.google.co.uk has no ads.
Google News presents an aggregated view of online news. Because of Google’s reach, news.google gets a lot of page views and results in a lot of click-throughs to the actual publisher. Facebook is a similar source of traffic although that’s driven by social sharing. In both cases, publishers benefit a lot assuming they can monetise those page views.
I’m not a big fan of Google but Google News isn’t the “bad guy” here.
Could you please explain to me how Google is making money from showing a brief excerpt from a linked website. Especially "all the money". Before you answer, please consider where most of Google's revenue comes from. Is it from showing things on their search page or is it from their ad network? Making money from the latter requires people to actually click through to the site.
Maybe I am missing something, so please enlighten us.
In order to display ads Google needs users to use its websites. Google being able to offer news snippets on his website is a feature that drives traffic and therefore drives ad impressions and therefore revenue.
It's like saying that Google doesn't benefit from GMail because people reading mail doesn't make them money.
I guess an other way to answer this question would be to say: if Google doesn't care at al about previews, why did they develop the feature in the first place and then fought against these laws instead of just removing it as soon as people started complaining? Clearly they do deem them valuable enough to go through this whole charade.
Those impressions are not from the search site but come into play once people click on a link. Google has an incentive to have people click on links. Including news sites. Especially news sites that come with tons of ads.
Let's say I blog about topics a lot of other people blog about. Let's say there was a Google Blogs. I would want Google to post a relevant snippet of my blog post to help me stand out from all the other links. And Google would happily comply, because this makes those who bought ads that now get displayed on my blog happy, and Google can charge them more money.
I'd say I would have to have a very twisted and self absorbed mindset to believe that Google is stealing from me for posting a relevant excerpt from my blog. But maybe that's just me.
> Google has an incentive to have people click on links.
This is true only insofar as it incentivizes people to come to Google in the first place. If Google can directly provide the information that the user is looking for, then it gains no benefit from sending the user elsewhere instead.
Again: Google's revenue comes from ads. Those ads are not on their search site. They are on the sites people click. How can you still believe, Google has no benefit from sending people to those sites?!
Second, in most cases those previews are too small to provide the information the user was looking for.
Since you're asking so politely: Google is in the business of targetted advertisement. It doesn't matter whether they're sending you to a website; they profit from your attention and the info you give them about yourself. The insane amount of money they extract won't benefit content creators and anyway it ending in the hands of a quasi-monopoly can't be in the public interest.
> It doesn't matter whether they're sending you to a website;
It does matter for this discussion because this is about Google showing two sentences of an article as preview. And the accusation is that Google somehow steals money from publishers by doing so. I don't like Google, but this accusation is just outright nonsense.
> The insane amount of money they extract won't benefit content creators and anyway it ending in the hands of a quasi-monopoly can't be in the public interest.
Ah, so it is a matter of principle to you. Taking away from the beast is a good thing. Off with it's head!
It nearly sounds like you think that no matter the means, it is always good to just hurtle laws at the quasi-monopoly.
That is a dangerous stance, tannhaeuser, because mindlessly throwing stupid laws at the beast might make it stronger, just like it does in this case. And the smaller competition might be crushed before it even existed. But, hey, at least you could take that fork and torch for a spin!
I'm all for cutting down Google, Facebook and Microsoft a couple of notches in favour of smaller competition, but I'm dead against using stupid or even dangerous means. This law was put into place by people who hate the internet, and they would set it all aflame if they could. Don't blindly follow destroyers.
Respectfully, I disagree with the rhetoric that this law takes away from the "internet" when the situation is that a handful of oligopolies extract all economic value, while content creation has become a race to the bottom. US antitrust enforcement has had their chance for upholding an "ordoliberal" stance like you're expressing here, but they let Google buy DoubleClick and YouTube, and let Facebook buy Whatsapp to form monopolies instead, and I don't think the rest of the world has to standby and watch their publishing industries being destroyed.
The publishing industries are not being destroyed by what you think. Your comment implies that the old publishing industries would be okay if Google or Facebook did not exist. That is not true.
There is a much deeper issue at hand here. The publishing industries make money off of information. Information has decisively different properties from physical objects. I have an apple. I give it to you, I don't have it anymore. You give it back, now you don't have the apple. I can hand out apples from my box and count how many I had, how many I have left. That gives me the exact amount of my apples out there. You can use these properties as the basis of a business model.
Information does not have the properties of physical objects. And therefore you shouldn't be able to use the same business model for selling apples for selling information. Yet throughout most of the 20th century exactly this was done. It was possible because the information was mostly stuck to the media it was sold on. It was hard to get the information off that medium and copy it to another without losing something. This made it possible to use physical object business models with information.
But that was all a fantasy. And this fantasy collapsed when the media moved to computers. For music, e.g., that was about 25 years ago. Half a century ago.
However, a huge chunk of the publishers and artists are still living in their fantasy. They don't see that they are deluding themselves when they demand their old business models to still work. For them, its the internet that is at fault, not their incomplete grasp of reality. And the big scapegoat is the internet.
If those publishers could, they would burn down the internet in a second and replace it with something they control in order to rise again as the oligopolies they once were. They yearn to remove the ability from small content creators to independently publish. They would like to build their old schemes like GEMA and VG-Wort into the internet. This is at the core of why these laws have been put into place. And that is why I believe my rhetoric is well placed.
If you look closely, you will see that those publishers and artist who moved on, beyond the fantasy, are not the ones endorsing these laws. Because they know that they are not under threat by the internet or by how Google shapes their Search site. The adversaries here are Facebook or Spotify, or the way Youtube is starting to cater towards big publishers over small content creators. But this is a different battle.
I believe that if we let the old publishers control the fight against oligopolies, we will just have the old ones back in the end, and the internet will be poorer for it. I have the feeling, the press has pulled people like you already to their side with their constant barrage of negativity on everything internet.
I don't want to discourage you from taking up arms, but please be more careful with whom you are standing on the barricades.
Let's say Google has a user on the Google News page and has a couple of levers they can pull to control if that User clicks through to read the content or only skims headlines and some snippets.
Given that there are no ads on Google News and Google makes money from most online ad sales, what reason would Google have to limit click throughs?
Clicking on am article gives Google more data and increases the chances that Google will make some money from ad sales.
Google definitely wants Google News to be the starting point for news reading habbits, but Google definitely also wants it's readers to click through and view news articles.
There are plenty of anti-competitive practices by Google to address. This simply is not one of them and arguably does more to shore up Google against competitors given that Google has a stronger ability to force publishers to grant Google access. Publishers already had full opt-out control over how Google uses their content and smaller aggregators were free to ignore those meta headers. Now smaller aggregators must convince publishers to opt-in or face legal consequences.
This law is just simply idiotic unless your only goal was to help Google News compete in Europe.
Common Lisp code tends to be very stable long term. Occasionally people dig out some old code from the 60s or from really old books and papers and it will just run on modern systems. Maybe with slight modifications since the standard was finalized in 1994 and there were some changes to the way scope works in common lisp compared to say the older mac lisp, but anything written since that is written in portable standard compliant common lisp is pretty much guaranteed to continue working while there are still people willing to maintain common lisp compilers for whatever hardware exists in the future. It's actually extremely comforting to be able to come back to a project after not touching it in a few years and have every test pass even if I upgraded all the dependencies(as long as I picked the right dependencies that is :), lispers tend to be pretty conservative about breaking changes in mature and popular libraries.
> we should make sure that non-smokers do not take up vaping
How about we let adults do as they please instead.
The most anybody should ever do about vaping is warn people that maybe it's not the safest thing in the world.
Instead in the EU we have a ridiculous law that makes it illegal to sell nicotine liquid in container bigger than 10ml, which means that if I don't want to spend twice what I used on cigarettes, I have to buy non-nicotine 100ml bottles of liquid and then buy separate 10ml bottles of nicotine concentrate and mix them myself, doing the math myself to get the proportion I used to be able to just order and generating a small pile of empty small plastic bottles every month because people who can't sleep at night unless somebody does something about everything!!!OHGODSTHECHILBREN!!! keep coming up with stupid ideas like that.
Please we should not be making sure of anything! We don't need to be sure that every body is absolutely safe all the time, put a warning label and let us do as we wish with our health.
Letting adults do as they please is a common refrain, but when you're living in a country with subsidized healthcare, the government has an incentive (at the macro level) to not let you do stupid things that raise healthcare costs, which are then passed on to the population at large.
In America, you break it, you buy it. Everywhere else, I have no problem with a bit of governmental oversight to make sure people don't hurry themselves to a quicker and more expensive death.
That is a savagely, tragically dangerous position to take in a country with subsidized healthcare. We have many examples of unintended consequences resulting from attempted behavior modification with the goal of improving health, and government policies, due to the way they are executed, are inherently much more difficult to reverse or change than education. Just for one example, look at the American Heart Association. In the 70s, they believed they saw evidence that the amount of the diet which came from saturated fats produced increased risks to heart health. So they pursued governmental avenues to reduce the saturated fat intake of Americans by 15%. They succeeded. Saturated fat was removed from many products available on store shelves. Which made them taste like cardboard. Which made sales fall. To restore flavor, they filled the products with sugar and salt. Sales improved. Average American caloric intake skyrocketed. It birthed an obesity epidemic, a diabetes epidemic, and yes, a heart disease epidemic. Meanwhile, research showed saturated fat wasn't quite so dangerous as once thought.
Trusting people to their own devices and doing no more than education is not perfect. But it reduces the odds of unintended consequences like this drastically. It also makes it much easier to change course when necessary.
Not the case at all. We have subsidized healthcare in the USA and have had it for a long time. The poor (typically the demographics of vapers and smokers) rely on free healthcare quite a bit via Medicaid and or just having the tax payers foot their hospital bill for them. Older people have Medicare. We also subsidize addiction facilities and mental facilities as well. We pay way more for our healthcare than most other nations but we also have most of the medical innovations occurring in the states. All that said, yeah the government does not allow citizens to jump off buildings and run out into traffic because they think it's a good idea. We try to warn against those types of things and it's no different than what the CDC is doing by warning Americans to stop vaping until we know what is killing people.
> How about we let adults do as they please instead.
I don't understand why your post is so angry. In England there are no laws that stop people vaping. We have a government organisation that has to make recommendations for public health, and they've given their recommendation.
> Individual liberties cannot be realized without sanctions and foreign policy.
What kind of jingo non-sense is that?
We now have over a century of data on how effective US foreign policy is at promoting democracy around the world and if you read the history even badly, you can't help but notice that it's much better at killing people in monstrous numbers than at promoting individual liberty.
The holocaust was in many ways enabled by mass surveillance. How about we start there. It was done mostly manually, but even something as trivial as census data from an occupied country likely killed an unimaginable amount of people. Then of course you had the eastern block where the authorities would've been wetting their pants at the surveillance capability of a modern private individual, let alone a corp or government. These are not theoretical questions, we've played this game before and now we have really big toys.
I hate the "Holocaust census data" argument because presented like this, it can be used to demonize pretty much anything. Yes, Nazis used census data because it was available. Were it not, they would've used something else. When a band of monsters with resources of a country wants to get you, they will get you. You have to consider the possibility of it, but in times of peace, it's no way for living. Census data isn't collected in anticipation of future monsters in power - it's collected to provide immediate benefit to citizens.
The right answer is not "this dataset shouldn't exist" - it's "what benefits does this data give us, and do those benefits outweigh the risk of abuse?".
Your phone doesn't just contain private data about you, it contains private data about people you know. Selling them out like this is a scumbag thing to do, not to mention it's probably a TOS violation of every service you interact with. FB basically solicited people unwittingly commit crimes on their behalf.
You're right, it's not fair, but there is no fair in war, and make no mistake, this is what it is, a war for humanities freedom and dignity and you're on the wrong side of it. My country spend decades and a significant amount of its resources building a giant surveillance network meant to oppress and terrorize it's people but because it was 20th century tech, it was orders of magnitude less powerful than what you do(it relied on human informants, usually extorted into cooperating because somebody informed on them). We dismantled that machine because it was extremely dangerous to the free society we decided to build and we will eventually dismantle your bigger badder machine as well. Make sure you save enough for retirement.