Google says it’s running the “time-limited” test because EU regulators and publishers “have asked for additional data about the effect of news content in Search.” The company says it will continue to show results from websites and news publishers located outside the EU, and it will resume showing results from EU news publishers once the test ends.
This is the EU testing what it would be like if they ditched Google, not Google testing what it would be like without the EU. The test also doesn’t impact the US.
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.
It’s also worth noting that if Google has to pay, they may very well just not bother to show that information in search results which also hurts small search engines who rely on Google for part of their search Indexing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My brother in Lemmy, this is what stopping Big Tech looks like.
Europe made laws that say that Google and others need to pay if they want to link to EU publishers. Well, maybe the price they are asking is not worth it.
You’re right about the firewall energy, but that’s simply how these laws work. The point of copyright, as well as age verification and other such laws, is to control who may access certain information.
Big tech needs to be stopped yesterday. This literally has china great firewall energy and I hate it.
This is the opposite of what you think it is.
This is the EU testing what it would be like if they ditched Google, not Google testing what it would be like without the EU. The test also doesn’t impact the US.
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.
Laws need to be different for monopolies and large player. Stop the rich from using the small as human shield for their grotesqie practice.
Unless I’ve misunderstood the law, it doesn’t hurt small engines, because small search engines don’t have to pay.
https://lemmy.world/comment/13446861
It’s also worth noting that if Google has to pay, they may very well just not bother to show that information in search results which also hurts small search engines who rely on Google for part of their search Indexing.
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.
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.
EU: You have to pay to show our news.
Google: Ok. We won’t show your news.
EU: Pikachu face
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not wanting to appear on Google is how we’re going to get EVEN more dailymail type shit.
I mean, they’ve done this when places charge them money to index the news articles there.
It hardly seems reasonable to both mandate that they index a given piece of news media and that they pay a fee to do so.
My brother in Lemmy, this is what stopping Big Tech looks like.
Europe made laws that say that Google and others need to pay if they want to link to EU publishers. Well, maybe the price they are asking is not worth it.
You’re right about the firewall energy, but that’s simply how these laws work. The point of copyright, as well as age verification and other such laws, is to control who may access certain information.
Europe asked Google to do this so they can monitor what kind of influence Google has.
A US news echo chamber at the whims of whatever they think will appease trump is going to be horrifying…
deleted by creator