• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    35
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I don’t.

    I mean, I agree with Google insofar as that nobody should have to pay a fee to be able to link to something on the Internet.

    But I don’t really think that this is the best way to push back on it. The only reason Google can counter like this is because the news sites who got the legislation as far as they have need Google News badly enough. If Google News weren’t that important, the media companies involved could well make this stick.

    Google can do this because they’re big and important. And I think that Google is right. But Google isn’t right because they’re big and important.

    I’d much rather have the ability to link to something simply be recognized as a First Amendment-protected right by SCOTUS. Like, it shouldn’t be permissible to block someone from linking to something or charge them to link to something.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      192 months ago

      It’s literally their only response to legislation like this.

      The legislation is based on the core concept that linking to a site is stealing from them. Therefore, choosing to stop stealing from them is simply doing the right thing. It’s doing exactly what they’re asking for.

      “Linking to me is stealing, but you’re required to link to me” is not a valid position.

    • Jajcus
      link
      fedilink
      22 months ago

      ‘Pay to show a link’ is the way Google wants us to see this legislation. But linki are not what the news sources are fighting. The problem is Google presents the news and other information in the search result in the way that users often do not need to leave Google and foll9w the link.
      Someone produces content so people visit their się and make them money, but those users get the information they want (sometimes incomplete or broken) straight from Google and only Google gets the money. That is not fair and that is what laws like this try to fix (better or worse). But Google and such have powerful propaganda and here we are.

      Another thing is: users of services like Reddit or Lemmy also do similar thing (posting content in a way that preventing monetization at its source), so they have extra reason to take Google side.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Nope. Read the bill text. All Google has to do is link to an article for it to apply.

        https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB886/id/2758152

        (1) For each month, a covered platform shall track and record, for each eligible digital journalism provider that submits a notice pursuant to Section 3273.61, the total number of the covered platform’s internet websites that link to, display, or present that eligible digital journalism provider’s news articles, works of journalism, or other content, or portions thereof, and that the covered platform has displayed or presented to California residents.

        (2) For each month, a covered platform shall use the data collected pursuant to paragraph (1) to calculate the allocation share for each notifying eligible digital journalism provider.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        82 months ago

        You know that the preview text is decided by the sites? Facebook, Google, whoever, aren’t choosing what to display. They’re taking the stuff explicitly formatted as “please show this to make our link more attractive”. (See opengraph)

        As AI summarizers of pages really emerge this will be a more valid point, but using the preview text the authors (using a very clear format for that sole purpose) asked you to to allow users to link to their site fundamentally cannot be stealing.