this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
246 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
59974 readers
3693 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
EU: You have to pay to show our news.
Google: Ok. We won't show your news.
EU: Pikachu face
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 The tightened copyright law provision wasn't repealed.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.
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.
Not wanting to appear on Google is how we're going to get EVEN more dailymail type shit.
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.