undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdmayle2y ago0 comments

This is the most ridiculous take on this that I've ever seen. Next you're going to say that newspaper stands need to pay a charge to the newspaper each time someone walks by their stall (or buys gum, for example). They have seen the headline, and then moved on.

Very often a headline is all someone needs or wants. That has value. Without anyone buying that newspaper, the newspaper stand has got value from the headline, and contributed nothing to the newspaper publisher in return.

The reality is that headlines are advertisements for articles. That's why there are headline writers in the first place. Make a better advertisement, get more sales.

In the case of Google, publishing links with headlines means publishing free ads for that website. The website most certainly benefits from that relationship, if they didn't, they would just use robots.txt to block Google indexing their website, which someone has always been free to do.

The real problem is that newspapers would just like to take a percentage of Google revenue, because they're a big company.

0 comments

8 comments · 4 top-level

reaperducer2y ago· 3 in thread

The real problem is that newspapers would just like to take a percentage of Google revenue, because they're a big company.

If that's the case, let Google do its own reporting and write its own headlines. It's not like it doesn't have the money. Problem solved.

JoshTriplett2y ago

Then Google would probably get antitrust complaints from including their own news but not competitors' news sites.

scarface_742y ago

That would be a great outcome for Google wouldn’t it? Just cover national news using paid reporters and capture all of the ad revenue.

pyrale2y ago

> That would be a great outcome for Google wouldn’t it? Just cover national news using paid reporters and capture all of the ad revenue.

They already capture most of the ad revenue.

And Google is notoriously bad when it comes to paying humans to investigate issues, as shown by their absent customer service.

regnard2y ago· 1 in thread

I agree with this take-- and this is probably why Google and Meta were the only companies included. What about Reddit, Twitter, (and even HN)?

The counterpoint here is that this bill is very protectionist in nature and aims to give something to the Canadian news & media industry.

adjav2y ago

Oh no, it's not just Google and Meta. That's how it's being presented, but it's actually whoever the CRTC wants to charge. They can and will change the list at any time, with no need for oversight.

6D794163636F7562y ago

Yeah, the definition of news content being "news content means content — in any format, including an audio or audiovisual format — that reports on, investigates or explains current issues or events of public interest and includes such content that an Indigenous news outlet makes available by means of Indigenous storytelling. (contenu de nouvelles)" seems overly broad but I doubt they intend for headlines to be included.

I think the bill will lead to further litigation, specifically if a headline counts as reporting or explaining. I doubt a headline can investigate.

It does also seem to put a limit on a platform's ability to negotiate which is worrying. After 3 rounds of negotiations an arbiter can come in and decide what is a fair price and companies are not allowed to treat different news organizations differently. This seems to have room to abuse for me.

JamisonM2y ago

This newspaper stand argument is really, really bad. The headlines of the physical newspaper on the front page are for the purposes of advertising the newspaper.. and the newspaper stand sells the newspapers - that's a big contribution to the newspaper business!

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse