Google and Meta to be forced to pay for news - embedding or just hyperlinking?

Forums › Off topic › Google and Meta to be forced to pay for news - embedding or just hyperlinking?

1 | 2

Oblivian

6942 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#3006231 6-Dec-2022 12:48

Theres a relatively easy solution

... ignore all from stuff

You can likely thank your previous related subject interactions or social circle reach (pals who like it etc) if you see them. Or using the standard feed (not selecting most recent)

Don't have any links to herald or stuff. But because others I know interact they try extend the reach.

It's kinda how it works.

This was just a 'suggestion' when changing from most recent to the one they want us to see. No sign prior

Norton

Get easy to use, easy to install Norton antivirus protection against advanced online threats (affiliate link).

Kyanar

3874 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3007117 7-Dec-2022 22:55

Wombat1:

Hopefully this would mean less stuff rubbish in my facebook news feed. I dont go onto their site to read their nonsense, and dont want to see it in my feed either.

It doesn't. It actually means it gets worse as Facebook et al have to more aggressively monetise to cover the payments they're forced to make to low effort "news" providers who now have a captive audience and revenue stream.

jarledb

Webhead
3115 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3007128 7-Dec-2022 23:44

I wouldn't bet money on Google and Facebook keeping the sharing of articles. Push Google enough and they might even stop crawling the news sites.

That would be more costly for the news organisations than for Google/Facebook et al.

Jarle Dahl Bergersen | https://keybase.io/jarledb - Referral Links: Buying a Tesla? Get free extras by using my referral code.
Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by making a donation or subscribing.

Handle9

9633 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3007129 7-Dec-2022 23:50

jarledb:

I wouldn't bet money on Google and Facebook keeping the sharing of articles. Push Google enough and they might even stop crawling the news sites.

That would be more costly for the news organisations than for Google/Facebook et al.

I would. They jumped up and down and made all sorts of threats in Australia but ultimately caved in as it was in their best interests to do so.

Kyanar

3874 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3007293 8-Dec-2022 11:42

jarledb:

I wouldn't bet money on Google and Facebook keeping the sharing of articles. Push Google enough and they might even stop crawling the news sites.

That would be more costly for the news organisations than for Google/Facebook et al.

In Australia, it's illegal to simply stop indexing or allowing sharing of the news. Designated companies MUST pay.

jarledb

Webhead
3115 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3007311 8-Dec-2022 12:21

Kyanar:

jarledb:

I wouldn't bet money on Google and Facebook keeping the sharing of articles. Push Google enough and they might even stop crawling the news sites.

That would be more costly for the news organisations than for Google/Facebook et al.

In Australia, it's illegal to simply stop indexing or allowing sharing of the news. Designated companies MUST pay.

That is a crazy concept.

Having to perform a service that you then have to pay for. And not being able to not do it.

Kyanar

3874 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3007355 8-Dec-2022 14:10

jarledb:

That is a crazy concept.

Having to perform a service that you then have to pay for. And not being able to not do it.

It's pretty telling also that when originally drafted, the law had a carveout that said you didn't have to pay the publicly owned media companies, only the commercial ones.

1 | 2