Google will pull news links in Canada in response to new law : canada

[-] CoderKat@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Honestly, I don't know what the lawmakers expected. The bill is dumb. It'd be perfectly fine to require payment for copying a substantial amount of a new article (eg, if they want to prevent google from offering a public cache that gets around paywalls). But the bill outright requires paying to link to Canadian news sites in search results. That's outright madness.

Y'all can hate google and meta all you want. That's totally fine. I encourage you to use competing search engines (it's bad that Google has a near monopoly). But this bill is a bad bill.

The folks on this site might know about alternatives, but the average person doesn't. When the average person can't find Canadian news sites on Google, they're not going to switch to duck duck go or whatever. They're going to just use a non Canadian site. This bill is going to hurt Canadian news companies and it's disappointing to see people cheering it on because you're happier to see Google and meta hurt than you are sorry to see Canadian news sites hurt...

[-] PenguinTD@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

yeah the scraping content is the issue, not the linking. So this bill is pretty stupidly formed. They can simple require google/meta only provide line, title and max 250 letters abstract/trimmed first paragraph(excluding space and punctuation.)

They(Canadian medias) want the traffic to their site so they can display sponsor ads or sell subscriptions.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago

It's the control over the advertising that's the issue. Scraping content is fine, as long as it's following copyright laws.

The issue is that the Toronto Star used to make most of their money by being able to offer prime advertising space next to its articles. The rest of their money was from subscriptions and newspaper sales, which people were willing to pay because it was the only way to get the news in a portable form.

More money for newspaper ads meant more money available to journalists, which made the advertising space next to those columns more valuable. It was a virtuous cycle where the better your journalists were, the more valuable the ad space next to them became. Nowadays, Meta and Google control that ad space and take a massive cut of any ad shown there.

At the same time, someone doesn't need to own a printing press to make an article available, thanks to the Internet. That means that mediocre quality "citizen journalism" and low-quality press releases compete for ad space in a way they didn't in the heyday of print journalism. The idea of "buying a newspaper" is gone and will probably never come back because mobile internet meant that getting access to news (and other content) was just so easy.

Meta and Google get virtually all their money from ads. The way to reduce their impact on Canadian journalism isn't to force them to pay some kind of "link tax", it's to address their ads monopoly and give back control over ads to the publishers.

[-] PenguinTD@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

I am not sure if I am missing something here, if directing the viewer to website and website display the content+ad, how does google take a cut? Google take a cut from sponsored link right? So if the media feel that paying for the link redirection is an extortion, then don't buy sponsored links right?

I am old enough that I know what news is like before internet, so to compete the eyeballs and attract regular/repeat users, your content needs to be in top quality. And we all know how it's not the "media" controlling ads, it's the other way around, it's who paid for ad space controlling the media. And to be honest, it was never a good healthy cycle anyway.(see TV ads, new paper ads, youtube ads, and intrusive web ads), faster and shorter engagement time means less conversion, and usually it means worse content overtime as sites try everything to prolong engagement time. (ie. sponsored content, embeded autoplay, more "next page", more "releated" "you might also be interested" links with clickbait title/thumbnail, etc, etc.)

People ARE statistics, there are portion of people that are considering buying certain thing, so owning your social interation/search data leads to higher associations, thus more effective ads. It's the sole reason why Google/Meta's business work, cause they can do user targeted ads.

Let's be honest, journalist quality is going down the drain as well. Like almost 30~40% of content is lagging social network for about minimum half day up toward a week. Maybe articles are just glorified blog post of referencing social media posts. Don't get me wrong, people do crave quality content articles, it's just that majority of time, even when posted to say special interest sub-reddit, the content itself is really lacking. ie. say, compare the hardware review from early 2000 and now(after 2020), it takes "longer" to get to the point, it was filled with many charts that aren't really interesting(cause we know benchmark and game performance are usually have special driver treatment etc.), less article explains the important architecture changes, how much it would affect your experience(just copy paste sponsor marketing material), talking about the hard points like is it worth the upgrade, longevity, etc. It's so bad that usually, asking in a specific gaming sub or discord about certain hardware gives you less biased feedbacks and chances are, they also give you links to cheaper vendor or links to price tracker. Hardware review sites gives you none of that(here is our sponsored market place, please support us by using the linkes below, blah.)

Last but not least, the intrusive full screen blocking shit when I just view the article's first paragraph and scroll 2 mouse wheel ticks down. How can a website expect me to subscribe without at least let me check 1 article? heck, like even 1 page or something before you pop that thing and ask me to subscribe. I am trained in a way that if I clicked an external link and see that full screen block, I just ctrl+w and close that tab. It is not worth my time. And I am the type of guy that whitelist sites that are actually helpful or pay visit often. The media sites aren't doing their best to keep or invite random visitors to come again. It's pretty much the same shit if you just scroll through Edge's suggested contents.( which I have to turn off everytime if the update reset my settings. ) They have to provide something where people are willing to stick around.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago

if directing the viewer to website and website display the content+ad, how does google take a cut?

Nearly every ad on the Internet that isn't on Facebook is a Google ad. They take approximately 1/3 of the money the publisher makes on the ad. So, if Ford pays $1 per click on an ad shown on the Toronto Star, the Star gets $0.68 and Google gets $0.32. Also, Ford pays Google to show that ad because Google runs both the publisher and advertiser sides of the game.

And we all know how it’s not the “media” controlling ads, it’s the other way around

Sure, to some extent. But, the big, powerful news organizations used to have content that was in such high demand that they journalism staff was insulated from the ads side of things. It also used to be a point of honour among journalists and their editors that they were going to speak truth to power, even if it alienated some of their advertisers.

usually, asking in a specific gaming sub or discord about certain hardware gives you less biased feedbacks

I disagree, most communities become echo-chambers, certain hardware is popular, and certain hardware is "trash" and if you disagree you get downvoted or shouted down. It's very rare when you can have an informed, balanced conversation about whether nVidia or AMD have the best card at a certain price point. At best you have fanbois for each side duking it out.

Anyhow, the point is that traditional media, media that actually hires people who went to journalism school, now has to compete with random bloggers, people who want to be influencers, people looking to be paid for their affiliate links, etc. Google and Facebook don't care what you click on, as long as there's a chance you'll click on their ads. So, if they have to pay a link tax to link to traditional media companies, they're happy just to link to the other stuff instead -- or just to link to American news sites.

[-] PenguinTD@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

So, if Ford pays $1 per click on an ad shown on the Toronto Star

That's the root cause no? why does it has to go through Google or Meta? If Ford paid google and Toronto Star give google ad space for ad revenue split, everything is in the contract. There is no law to prevent traditional media to have their own union ad organization right? Or at very least, Toronto can refuse and run their own ad space selling like old paper times. If say, Ford can't do it the old way like on paper, why is that? Toronto Star don't have enough technical people to handle online ad? don't know how to do ad pricing and conversion tracking? don't know how to do targeted ads? Those aren't google's fault, if traditional media wants to save money on upgrade their ad technology and backend, they will ended up forking money and purchase what others provided.

used to have content that was in such high demand

That's also not google's problem, it's the industry's problem. Like theaters/cable tv fighting for survival against streaming, brick and mortar fighting against Amazon, people only want to spend time or money on things they feel justified.

most communities become echo-chambers

If you go to nvidia community and ask what AMD card is better, then yeah, that's sort of stupid. In my example, my question or intention is to ask directly in the game's community. ie. if you ask which monitor might be best in "Home Theater" vs in "CS:GO" community, you would get totally different answer. Which is exactly what should happen for specific "review" for certain target audience. But we only get generic reviews that covers some talk points but not have actual feedbacks. So if I want to have best performance for say, Street Fighter, than I go ask in that community for best setup. Compare to spend hours and hours on review sites, you can quickly get a couple candidates for building/upgrading your PC/setup.

Lastly, say, if people go through say, fine art school, should we protect their job opportunity? Or people that have management degree they should get management jobs? Where are those shoe fixing/tailor made clothing jobs? The entire world is moving target, "used to be" is not a proper excuse to put a bad legislation that might actually back fire and damage the industry in the end.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago

why does it has to go through Google or Meta?

They have a duopoly.

There is no law to prevent traditional media to have their own union ad organization right?

No law, no. But, you understand how monopolies / duopolies / cartels work, right?

Toronto can refuse and run their own ad space selling like old paper times

No, the old times are gone.

Toronto Star don’t have enough technical people to handle online ad?

It's not technical people, although they don't have them either. It's that they don't have the reach / coverage / power of the duopoly and can't realistically compete with them.

don’t know how to do ad pricing and conversion tracking?

Again, a red herring.

Those aren’t google’s fault, if traditional media wants to save money on upgrade their ad technology and backend, they will ended up forking money and purchase what others provided.

That's like saying that if you don't like Bell Canada's phone prices, just start your own continent-spanning telephony company.

my question or intention is to ask directly in the game’s community

Which is likely to be polarized for either AMD or nVidia.

Lastly, say, if people go through say, fine art school, should we protect their job opportunity?

Irrelevant to what we're discussing.

[-] illidian@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Exactly. I’m not sure what lawmakers were expecting. Don’t Canadian news sites make money off of ads and traffic to their site? Why would they require special treatment and compensation for merely linking to their news sites and articles?

[-] chocodum@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Might I suggest accessing daily newspapers and magazines electronically with PressReader? You can do so for free (or tax dollars you are already paying lol) using your local public library card, if they are subscribed to this service.

With your library card:

Visit PressReader.com and click "Sign in". A pop-up labelled "Welcome to PressReader" will appear.

Click the blue "Library or Group" button on the lower left side of the pop-up. A longer pop-up labelled "Select Library" will appear.

Click "Search Libraries and Groups" and type in your city or local public library's name. A list of matching results will automatically appear as you type.

Click your library in the list of results. A new pop-up labelled "Library or Group Sign In" will appear.

If there are text fields for your Library card number and PIN, fill those in and click on the checkbox next to "I agree to allowing PressReader to verify and exchange my registration with my public library." Then click the green "Log In" button at the bottom.

If the new pop-up simply has a green "Sign in" button underneath your library's name, click it to be redirected to your local library's website to log in.

Unfortunately, not every public library can afford to subscribe to this service. Also, some libraries do not show up on the PressReader.com "Search Libraries and Groups" list even if they do have access available via their own website. If these instructions do not work, please visit your local public library website or branch for additional information or assistance.

[-] CostcoFanboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

The amount of people that don't understand how important a news propagator like Google is is mind-blowing. Access to information is a right. This beats this right down to a pulp.

"HURR DURR GOOGLE BAD HUE HUE GOOD RIDDANCE HUE HUE I'M LE INTELLECTUAL"

Really sad. This fucked every news org. Hard. Except the big ones that own everything.

[-] Powerpoint@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago

They will eventually pay. This is similar to Australia.

[-] dkbg@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago

Why should Google have control over the propagation of news? Everyone can still go to the individual news organisations' website...yes Google consolidated everything into one portal, but maybe it's time to go back to something less centralised, which isn't under the control of a single corporate entity, i.e. the way the web was originally intended to work.

[-] baggins@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Same reason you're using Lemmy and don't just go to browse every single individual website on the internet.

[-] dkbg@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago

So then we need a non-corporate portal for news. Centralising the power of information distribution with massive companies that are driven solely by profit is not the way.

[-] CostcoFanboy@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I can't wait to trust the feds that can't even work out their stupid CRA website with being a source of reliable news aggregation. Just last year I SAW someone else's tax reports on my account.

If you want to go on full /r/communism about Google, there's a subreddit for that. But giving the finger to Canadians and internet freedom just because you hate Google is wack. City Nouvelles is not getting a dime from this bill.

Google doesn't control the news as you tried to imply in another comment. That's ridiculous. People that use Google made the choice to use Google for their news. Just like you chose Lemmy, some choose Meta, others choose Reddit, MSN, Yahoo, Bing, etc.

All this does is kill independent news sources and cutting choices from Canadians for the profit of the few rich corps in Canada. It's a pure money grab.

[-] dkbg@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

Who said anything about the government stepping in to take over? I certainly didn't say that. Something like Lemmy (and the Fediverse in general) isn't government controlled, in fact it isn't controlled by any one entity, which is one of its strengths. If you're looking for a possible alternative to corporate or government control of media, you're using one right now.

The problem is that Google has become a defacto default for most people. That didn't happen just because people "decided" to start using it, the decision was made for them because Google has a great deal of money and power and can use that influence to essentially make the decision for people.

[-] CostcoFanboy@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm convinced you're trolling or genuinely really dumb.

I'm off, enjoy your monologue rants.

[-] dkbg@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

Strange reaction, no need for the personal attack. Enjoy your day.

[-] Iteria@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure what they expected. An EU country (I can't remember if it was Spain or Italy) tried this and Google just left. Then the news outlets begged for the law to be repealed. Google has a monopoly on search. If people can't find you there, you're gonna have a bad time because of your traffic free fall.

[-] GenericUser@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago

This a calculated move, but on the part of the Federal government, not google. It's not about CanCon or newspapers and news sites/networks being paid for their linked content, it's about slowly eliminating access to information that the federal government doesn't control

[-] Grant_M@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago

Greedy google doing greedy google things.

[-] AlternateRoute@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Greedy old news companies thinking they should be paid every time google displays a link or one of us posts to social media.. THe way the bill is structured links to news sites posted HERE on lemmy.ca may make lemmy.ca responsible for paying for them to the old news companies.

It's a bad law.

[-] Christos@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

F*ck these bozos who dont understand how much this is going to screw canadian news sites. They just see google gets owned and support whatever tf it is like sheep. Awful law

[-] AlternateRoute@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

I am amazed at how people don't understand that vague law that takes out there "Current enemy" could be used against them down the road.. THERE IS NO SUPPORT OF GOOGLE or facebook.. it is a bad law that could be turned around to start playing whack mole with lemmy instances in the future, especially those run by a Canadian entity or on canadian hosting.

[-] forgotmylastusername@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

The world wide web was meant to be more than a few tech bros with their tentacles on everything pulling it all towards a central point that is themselves. They're fighting for their monopoly here more than anything else. It's time for them to quit stifling innovation so the internet can evolve again.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

At the same time, the news industry has to be more than just Postmedia, BCE, Torstar and Rogers.

The issue is their domination of the online advertising space, not that they "steal" content from the news sources. Yes, they do get headlines, but then they direct people back to that media site to read the content. The real issue is that the ads on the social media post direct revenue to Meta/Google. The ads on the news media site send revenue to Meta/Google. They control the ads market on the buy side (people wanting to advertise) and the sell side (people wanting to show ads), and the exchanges between the two.

The big tech companies paying the big media companies for links is not the solution. It's a stupid idea and has failed everywhere it has been tried. The real solution is to break up the ads monopolies.

Canada

Communities

Rules