[HN Gopher] Google isn't happy with Microsoft over online news
___________________________________________________________________
Google isn't happy with Microsoft over online news
Author : dsr12
Score : 156 points
Date : 2021-03-13 09:07 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| notRobot wrote:
| Both companies have tried to or successful broken "the way the
| open web works" time and time again and both of them _should_
| stop.
|
| Will they? Of course not.
| uncledave wrote:
| Amp already did that.
| uncledave wrote:
| Replying to self. Typical HN:
|
| America asleep -> upvote to 3
|
| America (or Google) wakes up -> downvotes to -2.
|
| Fuck this politik and fuck Google. Amp is just internet cancer.
| whatever_dude wrote:
| Tangential, but am I the only one who thinks that Google News is
| _really_ bad nowadays? It used to be my main source of news, but
| I can 't stand it anymore. It's clear that it's trying to drive
| engagement by offering links more likely to be clicked. My custom
| topics are hidden away, stuff I don't want to read about is
| brought to the top... just overall bad in every way.
| nojito wrote:
| > News organizations have ad inventory to sell, but they can no
| longer sell directly to those who want to place ads," says
| Microsoft president Brad Smith. "Instead, for all practical
| purposes they must use Google's tools, operate on Google's ad
| exchanges, contribute data to Google's operations, and pay Google
| money. All this impacts the ability of news organizations to
| benefit economically even from advertising on their own sites."
|
| I'm not too versed in the Australia news thing, but is this
| statement true?
| aemreunal wrote:
| Microsoft acted pretty sleazy (IMHO) on the Australian law
| situation but it's rich for Google to attack them since they
| caved first and paid. I'm all for taxing companies (tech or
| otherwise) in sensible ways but the Australian news law was far
| from sensible.
|
| Not to mention AMP and whatnot.
| ehsankia wrote:
| Google's move was clever because they were in a lose-lose
| situation where they had to pay anyways. By doing a deal with
| News Corp, they showed that the whole thing was a blackmail and
| will the Australian government look bad.
| markdown wrote:
| > the Australian news law was far from sensible.
|
| For those out of the loop:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqj2z3QaRyU
| gdsdfe wrote:
| Haha one thing for sure australian have a good sense of humor
| u678u wrote:
| Lol. This bit sums up the whole thing for me. "Will that help
| our ailing media?"
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqj2z3QaRyU&t=77s
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| Honestly, I'm with Google on that one.
|
| I'm disappointed they caved in and paid the danegeld, but the
| way Microsoft went "We fully support the extraction from the
| danegeld, and if Google happens to lose any market share due to
| its refusal to pay it, we would be more than happy to have
| these customers use Bing instead. We fully support this law
| that has no effect on us and actively harms our main
| competitor" is just disgusting.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| They would be fine with it as long as they aren't subject to
| it. If they were subject to it, it would make it very
| difficult to operate Bing. Unless they just aren't doing
| algorithm changes very often, it would present a significant
| burden to be required to report out such changes weeks before
| deployment. Of course the forced "arbitration" for "fair"
| payment to news organizations would also be onerous for them.
| But fortunately for MS the law is highly selective in which
| companies it targets.
| Foe wrote:
| Strangely, Microsoft is supporting a similar law in the USA
| where they would be affected by it.
| tester756 wrote:
| Google Web Accelerator, Amp...
| gerash wrote:
| Some pretend Microsoft has turned into this benevolent
| corporation lately with their "Microsoft <heart> Linux" and
| adopting Android and Chrome. Well all those were done because
| they'd lost market share in servers, mobile OS and desktop
| browsers despite being the dominant player and forcing their
| offerings the whole time.
|
| Microsoft used to run smear campaigns (remember Scroogled?) when
| they hired Hillary Clinton's strategist. This last case shows
| they don't even care if it means everyone can be sued for not
| paying for a hyperlink. Say whatever you want about AMP or Google
| reader or whatnot but when was the last time Google spent their
| money on smear campaign and negative ads on a rival?
|
| Microsoft's corporate tactics have remained the same.
| xahrepap wrote:
| I try not to complain when proper competition causes improved
| behavior.
|
| I'm a fan of "the new MS". Do I trust them? Not any more than a
| massive company.
|
| But do I love all the open source software they're producing
| now? Yes! Do I pretend that it's because MS has seen the light
| and become penitent? No!
|
| But at least this time when MS turns its back on their users,
| we can fork .net, edge, and vscode and go on with our lives. MS
| can't unmerge their contributions to the Linux kernel or other
| open source projects they're selfishly contributing to.
| gerash wrote:
| I agree. If the outcome is a win for both Microsoft (or any
| other entity for that matter) and the rest of the ecosystem
| that's perfect.
|
| But they have shown that as a corporation they are
| comfortable playing nasty when it suits them.
| buran77 wrote:
| I never found much sense in this line of reasoning. MS as a
| corporation is an abstract legal concept with a name. Every
| action taken under this "umbrella" is an executive's
| decision (or a group's), not the actual abstract
| corporation doing it.
|
| It's fair to assume most of the leadership from '90s MS has
| moved on. So is your concern with the current leadership or
| the abstract concept of the corporation? Is it that "they
| did it once so they might do it again" the real worry? Do
| we assume the corporation has hysteresis and the executives
| of today will take similar actions to those of the past
| because of operating under the same "umbrella" named MS? If
| so how far back do you go with this record of bad or good
| deeds?
|
| I see a lot of people sort of bragging with being old
| enough to remember evil '90s MS (so around 35+). How far
| back do you look at a company to judge them? I can think of
| a lot of companies who flip-flopped several times because
| the leadership changed and the market demanded it. So once
| they go bad do they stay forever bad?
|
| Your worry should be MS's current leadership and their
| ability to execute in the future, not what Gates did 20
| years ago. Similarly you don't judge today's Google by
| their actions of 20 years ago. Saying "I don't trust MS
| because Gates in the '90s" tells me you might be stuck on
| the actual name and that's the only aspect that will ever
| matter to you (a simple "if MS then Bad").
|
| You've seen Google go from do no evil to whatever they are
| now. Apple from whatever they were to champions of user
| privacy. MS from whatever they were to embracing open
| source and such. None of it because corporations are
| sentient beings with intentions but because of leadership
| and market imposed necessity. If anything you (and I) are
| more rsponsible for what MS, Google, Apple, etc. do than
| those companies themselves. They do what we allow them and
| what we reward simply because their leadership acts in the
| interest of profits.
| brokencode wrote:
| Pretty much every large company will play nasty when it
| suits them and if they think they can get away with it.
| That's why they call it "corporate warfare", not "corporate
| hugs and kisses".
| hackerbrother wrote:
| My interpretation of "Microsoft <3 Open Source" is that MS
| has realized that their power in the tech industry is not
| dependent on their source code being a secret, and that in
| fact making your stuff open source makes you more popular and
| influential.
|
| In my opinion, MS didn't really cede much power to the
| community when open-sourcing .NET, for example. It would
| still be incredibly painful for a company to unhook itself
| from Microsoft's version of .NET, and .NET is still
| influential for all the same reasons is was before, because
| of MS's position in the software industry. I think the move
| was just MS moving the framework into the current paradigm of
| software development. All(?) popular frameworks are open
| source these days: React, Electron, ... It just doesn't fit
| with the times to have .NET be closed source.
|
| It think is interesting to think though about Google directly
| providing the source code base for its competitors, Edge and
| the other Chromium clones. Maybe the lasting message of US v.
| Microsoft was that if you open-source your software, you're
| less likely to be perceived as controlling. Or maybe your
| software simply becomes more influential if it's open source!
| Chrome being open source allows Google to be enormously
| influential as far as web standards go. It would probably be
| a lot less so if Chrome was closed source.
| why_Mr_Anderson wrote:
| Microsoft simply realized what current Open Source really
| is -> free labor. People will willingly work for free in
| their own free time using their own hardware on projects of
| other people or corporations. And they are proud to do
| that! Anyone not taking advantage of that must have brain
| damage.
|
| Original ideas of open source (free as in speech) are long
| forgotten.
| Rapzid wrote:
| > MS has realized that their power in the tech industry is
| not dependent on their source code being a secret, and that
| in fact making your stuff open source makes you more
| popular and influential.
|
| It has been a huge boon for .NET as well. Serious
| contributions started pouring in almost immediately. Code
| from Mono being ported over; linux support. Fixes to really
| old issues that were not getting attention because .NET was
| essentially put "in a box".
|
| C#, .NET and the CLR are pretty great tech that could have
| been a true Java alternative if not for the fact the vision
| for it was so narrowly scoped to Windows.
| smegma2 wrote:
| What's missing in .net core/standard for it to be a Java
| alternative today? I work with .net on windows so I'm not
| sure.
| Rapzid wrote:
| 25 years of momentum.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _...when was the last time Google spent their money on smear
| campaign and negative ads on a rival?_
|
| That's a PR stunt. You should be Actually Concerned about how
| much Alphabet is spending on lobbying.
| gerash wrote:
| Lobbying is like the prisoner's dilemma. If you don't do it
| but your rival does then you'll end up with these extortion
| laws that hands Murdoch free money as we saw in Australia
| CharlesW wrote:
| That's totally fair, and I understand that Google isn't
| unique in that respect. My point is that just because
| Google isn't doing flashy ad campaigns doesn't mean that
| they're not surreptitiously doing everything they can to
| continue to establish and cement their position as an
| unavoidable toll-taker on the internet.
| Siira wrote:
| They provide much more value than what they capture, and
| what they capture is pretty much necessary to serve those
| services (in the search space, not Android etc). The only
| way to make them capture less value is by tax, as we have
| seen. Other big tech companies are much more rent-seeking
| and can actually unlock swaths of value with proper
| regulation.
| SllX wrote:
| If they're spending a lot of money and still getting raked
| over the coals in various legislatures including Congress,
| why should we be worried?
|
| Lobbying only gets your interests on the table; it doesn't
| get you a seat at the table.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| Because there is no real difference between lobbying and
| bribing. And I think a lot of us have a problem with
| companies bribing politicians to get laws passed;
| especially companies that have enough money to bribe <the
| number of politicians needed to pass the law regardless of
| what anyone thinks about it> of them.
| SllX wrote:
| I question your premise that lobbying = bribery, but
| let's let it stand unchallenged because it's irrelevant
| here.
|
| If Google, Apple and Microsoft are all competing with
| each other and also doing business with each other in
| different markets, and they're also all lobbying
| legislators, whose metaphorical bag of money is the
| winner and gets all of their hopes and dreams fulfilled
| when Congress starts meddling?
| dane-pgp wrote:
| > [who] gets all of their hopes and dreams fulfilled
|
| Well, not the citizens of the country, which is kind of
| the point.
| SllX wrote:
| What, the Americans working at Apple and Google and
| Microsoft and own stock in them suddenly aren't citizens?
| What about the Board of Directors at each of them?
|
| Legislative bodies is where politics is supposed to
| happen, and legislators don't live in a vacuum. We don't
| elect them and send them up to the top of an ivory tower
| for two years to philosophize about policy with the
| occasional edict sent down. So how do legislators know
| what kinds of policies people actually want when there's
| about 700K people in their districts (and 39M
| constituents if you're a California Senator) unless
| people show up and say, "Hey, this is what I want from
| you, this is why I elected you."
|
| You get a mixed bag because legislatures _are_ a mixed
| bag representing a larger mixed bag, and sorry, newspaper
| polls aren't a good stand in for showing up and putting
| your name down for consideration. Your interests as a
| citizen are not identical to the other 699,999ish of your
| neighbors, and the guy or gal representing you is just
| one person of a larger body.
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| In what way do you see Alphabet getting raked over the
| coals? They obviously are a monopoly in both search and in
| the Android app market and should be broken up according to
| antitrust law. That isn't even being considered.
| SllX wrote:
| How is calling the CEO to come testify before Congress so
| members of the House and Senate can score talking points
| not taking a company over the coals? Or passing
| disturbing crony-handout legislation like the Australian
| Parliament did to the clear detriment of specific
| companies?
|
| Or all the nonsense going on in the EU? Or the political
| discussions to do as you suggest, breakup Alphabet, by
| people with the power, though not the moral standing, to
| do so?
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| Making the CEO testify costs Google very little.
|
| Could you provide links for this part?
|
| > Or passing disturbing crony-handout legislation like
| the Australian Parliament did to the clear detriment of
| specific companies? Or all the nonsense going on in the
| EU? Or the political discussions to do as you suggest,
| breakup Alphabet, by people with the power, though not
| the moral standing, to do so?
|
| It's vague and confusing.
| HPsquared wrote:
| They're in the 'embrace' phase.
| amarant wrote:
| Agreed! I used to work for a Microsoft owned game studio a
| while back, and during their Microsoft <3 Linux campaign, or
| shortly after, I noticed that xbox.com wouldn't work on Linux,
| unless I changed the user-agent to Chrome-windows or Chrome-
| Macos
|
| Loves Linux but blocks Linux by user agent. Nice.
|
| They changed it tho when we contacted them, so I guess there is
| some love, at least they were willing to change (when it
| impeded their own developers).
|
| Don't trust Microsoft!
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| Microsoft loves Linux in a very specific context--on servers,
| and as a development environment, in the latter case
| preferably running as a container or virtual machine inside
| of... well, you know.
| prussian wrote:
| >Loves Linux but blocks Linux by user agent. Nice.
|
| Reminds me of Office 365. If your UA has Windows in it, all
| of a sudden they offer SSO authentication as if Linux can't
| be set up for it.
| merb wrote:
| ?! sso means no relogin between multiple
| applications/platforms which works since day 1 on mac and
| linux. what does not work is seamless sso over the os
| (logon+browser+logged into office 365), but even that works
| with a good configured kerberos, but it's wonky and not
| supported. (only hybrid tough)
| alpaca128 wrote:
| Similarly, if you want to directly download the Windows 10
| ISO on a Windows machine you need to fake the user agent. In
| which case the site always claims that you're running an old
| version of Windows, even if you actually loaded the site on
| Linux.
| f6v wrote:
| > Don't trust Microsoft!
|
| The fact that people might consider trusting ANY corporation
| is sad.
| edoceo wrote:
| You can trust Edoceo, Inc. :)
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| > ...when was the last time Google spent their money on smear
| campaign and negative ads on a rival?
|
| Somehow, of all the abuses and injustices Big Tech commits,
| this one is way, way, way down on the very bottom of my list.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Most people seem upset that they said / did mean things to
| competitors or bundled IE with Windows. Meanwhile the FAAG
| (facebook, amazon, apple, google) is being investigated for
| antitrust not in the distant past, but right now.
| ggambetta wrote:
| Some people are too young to remember. I recently worked with
| new grads in a startup, and for these 20-somethings Microsoft
| has always been somewhat cool, and Bill Gates has always been
| this benevolent old guy that cures diseases. They were very
| surprised where I shared the articles where they were saying
| literally LINUX IS CANCER.
|
| With a mixture of time passing and billions of dollars, it
| looks like they've successfully "cleaned" their image :(
| tpmx wrote:
| High-end, (long-term) consistent PR management works very
| well. (Remember how everyone used to hate George W. Bush with
| the passion of a thousand burning suns?)
| Salgat wrote:
| It's not about PR, it's about some fundamental changes in
| their business goals. Azure allowed them to embrace Linux
| and open source in a way where they benefitted. Also they
| are no longer ran by that shithead Steve Ballmer. Microsoft
| isn't perfect but as far as massive corporations go they're
| no where near that bad.
| tpmx wrote:
| I've learned from experience: There is no way on HN to
| successfully comment negatively on something like that.
| Good luck with whatever you are doing with the the
| Microsoft platform.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| I think there might have been something else that helped
| dim that hatred than just PR management. A sort of
| comparative effect as it were.
| tpmx wrote:
| A key element of this long-term consistent PR is timing.
| Time makes old criminal idiocy pale, and there'll always
| be another clown.
| benrbray wrote:
| On a related note I'm 25 and am bitter about how older
| generations lived through Watergate / Iran-Contra / etc,
| and not only let everyone involved off the hook, but then
| let them all pull the strings behind the scenes throughout
| the 2000s and into the Trump era.
| tpmx wrote:
| Including during the Obama era? That would be a ballsy
| statement. I might have misunderstood you though - I'm
| not a native English speaker. (And also, we are drifting
| off-topic.)
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| Obama continued being a middle east warmonger. He just
| got a Nobel peace prize for it instead of being vilified
| UnpossibleJim wrote:
| Don't confuse politicians with "everyone". To be honest,
| being an east coast transplant on the west coast, I was
| shocked that no one remembered Trump during the Clinton
| era, or when he was pulling real estate cons. Either way,
| this isn't the place for me to get into politics. I hope
| that isn't what this forum becomes.
|
| P.S. Everyone is bitter about how the "older generation"
| handled things without the lens of modern values. I'm Gen
| X and we were angry all the time.
|
| EDIT: phone changed east to easy. They are not equal.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| The bulk of Microsoft's income is not from hoarding user data
| and serving ads. Microsoft makes most of it's money by making
| good products that people pay for.
|
| I've got my eye on them, but they aren't the same company under
| Satya.
| gerash wrote:
| This is a fallacy and doesn't make much sense to me.
|
| Most big tech companies have been investing to diversify
| their income sources. Whether those investments have had a
| massive return to take over their original cash cow is a
| separate concern. Google has been investing in hardware and
| cloud, Apple in building online services, Amazon in pretty
| much everything.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| What good products are they making? Haven't used any of their
| products in ages but I still get the impression that no one
| really enjoys their products (excluding excel maybe?)
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Windows, Xbox, visual studio, office, surface tablet,
| hololens are no good?
|
| I daily drive Linux and don't own an Xbox, but I'm also not
| a hater. I like companies that build things.
| bogomipz wrote:
| I'm in no way defending the Australian legislation but It's
| absurd to me that Google and recently Facebook have positioned
| themselves as defenders of "the open web." Google with their AMP,
| Project Dragonfly and Chrome dominance and FB with their walled
| garden seem to reach for the "open web" argument whenever
| something threatens their status quo.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Microsoft owns MSNBC, huge conflicts of interest.
| Paianni wrote:
| Microsoft hasn't owned any part of MSNBC since 2012.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| "Microsoft divested itself of its stakes in the MSNBC channel
| in 2005 and in msnbc.com in July 2012"
|
| ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC
| [deleted]
| jimjimjim wrote:
| everybody likes piling on google but i'm still thanking them for
| killing ie. people have short memories
| zargon wrote:
| Mozilla killed IE. Google swept in after Firefox did the hard
| work. (Ab)used their search monopoly to drive Chrome ads.
| merb wrote:
| thats a fairy tail. mozilla killed ie for home users, but on
| the business side (a way bigger market) that was not true.
| mozilla also basically did not target that market that much,
| I meaan they had no adm/admx templates and msi files for a
| very long time.
| techrat wrote:
| I stopped using Firefox because it was a bloated mess that
| frequently ended up with memory leaks despite shutting down
| the browser. Creating a new window with no history and
| killing all other windows still didn't get Firefox.exe to
| release all the ram it gobbled up.
|
| Mozilla has a habit of taking a decent, slimmed down browser
| (Phoenix, for those who remember that era), adopting it as
| their primary because their previous became a bloated mess...
| then taking the new fork, making it unwieldy and forcing
| people to create yet another fork to reign it in.
|
| Tell me again how this is Google's fault.
|
| They simply made a better browser.
| zargon wrote:
| Even though I disagree with that perspective, it has no
| bearing on the fact that Firefox had already dislodged IE
| from a dominant browser position before Chrome even
| appeared on the scene.
| dontblink wrote:
| Correct. But I also switched because chrome was better.
| There was no abuse by Google that impacted my decision.
| It was Chrome's per tab process that created more
| stability and overall less bloat.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > I also switched because chrome was better.
|
| Chrome was better for me for about 15 min until it
| crippled uBlock origin - at the same moment Chrome took
| action against non-Google advertisers, that Google didn't
| like.
|
| Meanwhile my memory issues with Ffx decreased while
| Chrome's grew; I've no memory issues to speak of at all
| now. Ultimately, FFx plugins wound up helping craft a
| positive browsing experience on Ffx, that can't really be
| duplicated in Chrome.
|
| Now I use Chrome to open up a single, overseas website
| because their native translation really is the best.
| Firefox (95%), Opera, Brave even Edge all see more use,
| however.
| sildur wrote:
| I think it was Firefox who killed IE. IE was declining in usage
| way before Chrome appeared. What Google killed was Firefox.
| croes wrote:
| Chrome killed IE in the companies because it was manageable
| and packable before Firefox was
| fhd2 wrote:
| With a combination of some actually good improvements over
| Firefox, and incredibly shady bundling practices. There was
| hardly anything you could install a few years back without it
| forcing Chrome as a standard browser on you.
| izacus wrote:
| Chrome was beating Firefox way before any bundling because
| it was just so much faster at browsing the web.
|
| Please don't rewrite history with things that aren't true -
| Chrome was significantly better browser for a long time
| with significantly better developer tools which made tech
| people prefer it early.
| stormdennis wrote:
| Just looked it up and find it hard to believe how low
| firefox's share is, under 4% overall. I moved back to it
| about a year ago from chrome and I think it's great.
| techrat wrote:
| Mozilla killed Firefox. Several times, in fact. How many
| variants of regular and mobile Firefox have there been now
| because the primary version always ends up a bloated mess?
| jimjimjim wrote:
| Firefox did hard hard work, all the way through the dark
| ages, it kept the flame alive. I've used firefox since the
| start, I still use firefox, in fact my progression was
| netscape->mozilla->firefox, and i'll continue using firefox.
|
| But chrome did the impossible, they shifted the Moms and Pops
| and most unbelievable, the absolute holy grail, the corporate
| desktop.
| skinkestek wrote:
| I'm thankful for that but now they've given us a new even worse
| monster and we are right back to square one.
|
| Remember: IE6 was the best browser for a while, the problem was
| it did things slightly different and people targeted IE instead
| of the web, exactly as they target Chrome instead of the web
| today.
| vanviegen wrote:
| Yes, they didn't care much for standards. But the larger
| problem was that they basically stopped implenting new web
| standards the moment IE was dominant, protecting their
| Windows monopoly.
|
| I don't think many web developers who have really lived
| through the IE 'glory days' would say the current situation
| is even nearly as bad.
| boublepop wrote:
| Just curious, what is the best way to "target the web" these
| days? I remember back in the xhtml days that you could
| validate against standards. But as I understand it these days
| with google eating up the standards development it seems like
| html5 is synonomous with chrome.
| skinkestek wrote:
| Mostly it is really really simple:
|
| Do test in Firefox (and Safari). If it works in FF it
| mostly works everywhere, but Safari has some quirks I
| think.
|
| In fact as long as I test my code in Firefox I haven't been
| caught with something that didn't work in all browsers any
| of my customers supported the last 4 or so years.
|
| There are a few Chrome-specific things one shpuld
| Jonnax wrote:
| I think you're misremembering.
|
| IE6 was a broken implementation of the standards of the time.
|
| And Microsoft decided that web browsing was done and did not
| update their browser.
|
| It was a scheme for vendor lock-in.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| End result is the same. I care a lot about cross browser
| and the amount of aggravation I have to go to get the
| developers I work with these days to even look at a site in
| just safari and chrome, (Firefox is completely ignored) is
| absurd and the amount of backchat and sarcastic comments of
| "can't we just tell them to use chrome" is ridiculous.
|
| My career started in the IE 6 era and even then people
| tested in at least 2 browsers.
|
| At most I've been lucky to have 1 team member who cares
| about this stuff. Maybe other companies are better but this
| is my experience the past 5 years or so.
| hownottowrite wrote:
| Half of Google's profits should be set aside to pay content
| creators.
| ttt0 wrote:
| Somewhat relevant, content creators from outside the US are
| going to be taxed by the US government.
|
| https://twitter.com/YouTubeCreators/status/13693446469089361...
| foobar33333 wrote:
| Why? Content creators are free to negotiate with google
| themselves. If they can't come up with a good deal they can use
| robots.txt to remove their content from google.
| kuschku wrote:
| As long as Google only used links that was fine, but now with
| the Knowledge Graph often just quoting all the content of the
| site directly, and Google showing ads to profit from that,
| we're seeing a situation where Google profits by scraping
| content, but the creators never do.
|
| None of this would've been an issue 20 years ago when 90% of
| the web was noncommercial, but now it destroys an entire
| industry.
| daniellarusso wrote:
| Parent's robots.txt solution would work in your scenario,
| but they would not be listed at all on the results page.
|
| If they are never going to get the traffic anyway, why be
| listed?
|
| Interesting.
| daniellarusso wrote:
| That is not the IP extortion model used by YouTube.
| hownottowrite wrote:
| If a better web experience is core to Google's interests,
| paying for content should pay off in the long run. That's
| what they're demanding of content creators anyway, so they
| should put their money where there mouth is.
| mar13032021 wrote:
| Negotiate with a company that bans accounts randomly and does
| not have a helpline? Nah, let government go after them, I bet
| they will be taking _those_ phone calls.
| saagarjha wrote:
| If you haven't read the blog post already, give it a minute:
| https://blog.google/products/news/google-commitment-supporti....
| It's a mudslinging embarrassment.
|
| I'm not a huge fan of the new rules, but it's clear that they've
| scared Google to the point where their PR department is unable to
| moderate themselves anymore, a trend I've noticed with every
| large tech company when placed in a difficult position. Until you
| see more companies doing this I think it's mostly safe to assume
| that any regulations you're applying to them are toothless and
| just a cost of doing business.
| LegitShady wrote:
| wow it's hard to believe that's official google messaging. It
| looks like someone lost their cool and hit 'submit' without
| giving it a day and re-reading it.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| > They are now making self-serving claims and are even willing
| to break the way the open web works in an effort to undercut a
| rival
|
| That's rich coming from Google.
| path411 wrote:
| Yeah at first I read it the other way and thought maybe
| microsoft was criticizing amp or something
| bogomipz wrote:
| Agreed. The following is particularly cringeworthy:
|
| >"And it's no coincidence that Microsoft's newfound interest in
| attacking us comes on the heels of the SolarWinds attack and at
| a moment when they've allowed tens of thousands of their
| customers -- including government agencies in the U.S., NATO
| allies, banks, nonprofits, telecommunications providers, public
| utilities, police, fire and rescue units, hospitals and,
| presumably, news organizations -- to be actively hacked via
| major Microsoft vulnerabilities."
|
| What does the Solar Winds hack have to do with news publishing
| regulation? Mentioning Bing here would have been logical but
| this poorly written run-on sentence is just pure mud slinging
| of the same type he is accusing MS of. Are there no corporate
| PR officers at Google who need to approve such posts prior to
| publishing? What an embarrassment.
| cwyers wrote:
| That is in such astonishing bad faith. It's one thing when
| random Reddit commenters ignore that Microsoft is a massive
| corporation that can, in fact, mulitask. A senior Google
| official should know better, because Google can mulitask too.
| Just a spectacular display of engaging in ad hominem instead
| of engaging on the issue.
| path411 wrote:
| Could also be Google adopting the new political speech. This
| is exactly how political "journalists" "slam" politicians on
| the other side. It's worked well for politicians this long,
| maybe it will work for these large walled corps?
| kgeist wrote:
| In 2021, it looks like Google is more predatory than Microsoft
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| I'd like to recap the issue here:
|
| An Australian law was based on the premise that it was unfair for
| Google to reap benefits from sending traffic to AU media sites.
| The law also forced search engines to firehose user data (w/o
| implementing privacy protections [1]) to Australian media
| interests (eg: Rupert Murdoch).
|
| Google said, "Ok. We'll comply with the law, forgo those benefits
| and stop sending traffic." Oddly, this did not satisfy the
| interests behind the law.
|
| Microsoft stepped in and said "We're totally down with this law"
| - including, apparently, the egregious gift of user data to AU
| media interests.
|
| [1]
| https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200817/22554345133/googl...
| moosebear847 wrote:
| What is firehose user data? I've become an expert on 11,000kPa-
| pressure hoses used to extinguish fires, but still have no idea
| what you mean!
| leereeves wrote:
| You left out the part where Google changed their minds and
| decided to pay for news in Australia. The whole "Ok. We'll
| comply with the law, forgo those benefits and stop sending
| traffic." bit was an empty threat.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/business/media/australia-...
| bfgoodrich wrote:
| This is an absurdly biased and fact-free recap.
|
| Any framing that posits that Google is benevolently "sending
| traffic" betrays that it should be discarded at the outset.
| Google (like Facebook and most other "make money on your
| content" empires) desperately tries to send as _little_ traffic
| as possible to anyone, which is why they have AMP, scrape
| content and provide a dubious "expert engine", and provided a
| news dashboard where they summarized every news site.
|
| I see this same ludicrous argument made re: Facebook. When
| Facebook temporarily blocked news, downloads of news site apps
| rose dramatically. It turns out that they weren't helpful
| whatsoever to anyone. They are a desperate suckerfish just
| trying to live off of the creation of other people.
| QuantumGood wrote:
| It was unfair for Google to reap benefits from: (1) Copying
| story summaries from AU media sites, putting them on a Google
| site, capturing visitor data from that site (2) Sending traffic
| to AU media sites
|
| It's more (1) than (2)
| tengbretson wrote:
| > Copying story summaries from AU media sites
|
| I could be wrong, but aren't these summaries published
| voluntarily as semantic metadata or a feed from the media
| sites?
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| They are, media sites are also free to opt out of google
| indexing.
| morelisp wrote:
| Indexing in Google's search engine to be included in
| response to user queries should be decoupled from being
| excerpted in Google's pretend newspaper front page.
| mjevans wrote:
| I disagree about news.google.com being a 'newspaper
| frontpage'. If I wanted newspapers I'd individually visit
| each 'paper' online. What I value is a broad summary of
| the different news topics that exist at any given moment
| and links to more details. Through that generalized (and
| if I provide keywords, more specific) lens on the world
| Google's News offering provides value not found in any
| single publisher's biased view of the world.
| morelisp wrote:
| If this was the intended use case Google would present it
| as a tool to enter a news article and it would show you
| all articles it believed were equivalent coverage. (i.e.
| what is now hidden behind "View Full Coverage" and
| without judgement about "Top Coverage" etc.)
|
| Instead it is structured _almost exactly like a newspaper
| front page_ , right down to the damn weather report.
| nwienert wrote:
| "but weren't they willingly paying the mob?"
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| In a situation where if you stop paying then the mob
| responds by ignoring you.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| Self-responding - adding my position.
|
| I find most of these arguments against Google to be reasonable,
| inc complaints of monopoly. Personally I strongly mistrust
| Google and have mostly divested myself from their offerings.
|
| What I see Google did here was to vet the law's claims of
| fairness (Google gets money from our content so we should too)
| by stopping that arrangement. Once done, that particular
| unfairness was ended and the purported aim of the law was
| satisfied.
|
| The grumpyness following Google's action confirms the law's
| intention is to create a new stream of tax revenue that AU Gov
| would grant (for now, anyway) exclusively to AU media entities.
|
| I could potentially be behind a tax->news. Maybe. If it were
| constructed with more wisdom than this law is. I can not
| support this law because of it's shoddy construction
| (firehosing user data? srsly?) and because it's supplied
| purpose (ending unpaid usage of content) isn't truthful.
|
| A larger issue may be that snippet laws seem to serve to
| further entrench Google's position by making news orgs
| dependent on Google for their operating revenue. This seems
| highly problematic.
|
| It also grants new control over news funding to the AU Gov. If
| that control can be misused - to forward (AU Gov or 'partner'
| Gov) agendas - modern history tells us it will be.
|
| Lastly, once this is normalized, who should pay next?
| judge2020 wrote:
| Another boneheaded provision on the law is the requirement to
| give advance notice on upcoming changes to the algorithm to
| the news publishers. This is broken for both the reason of
| not being able to deploy 'algorithm changes' without delaying
| them 14 days (PDF page 23), which might not even be possible
| given machine learning's always-learning algorithm, and for
| the reason of news outlets for some reason being entitled to
| information on algorithm changes before everyone else in
| order to get a leg up in search results over anyone not in
| cahoots with the search partner.
|
| Law text: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legis
| lation/bi...
| oezi wrote:
| The monopoly powers Google holds over search have given them
| such a strong position, that Google is more than reaping
| benefits. It is in the public's interest to prevent such powers
| to destroy the 4th column of balance in democracies that
| journalism should strive to be.
|
| This is not to say that Murdoch's news empire isn't bad as
| well, but no country should sit back and watch while Google and
| Facebook siphon money out of the countries.
| koboll wrote:
| The traditional way to do this would be something like
| building a domestic search engine and levying steep taxes on
| foreign ad buys, rather than this bizarre attempt at
| backhanded protectionism.
| morelisp wrote:
| I don't know if you can say "traditional" so much as
| "historical". It's extremely difficult for software
| services to differentiate a domestic offering in the same
| way as physical goods - let alone when both countries share
| a language and the service has little cultural content per
| se.
|
| Has a second-mover service ever overtaken a first-mover via
| on this strategy within in the Anglosphere? Or even within
| "the west"? (Xing vs. LinkedIn maybe? But everyone I know
| has both...)
| nojito wrote:
| Terrible recap.
|
| The idea that Google is the one who gets to know who you are
| despite not creating the content that they are exposing to you
| is absolute nonsense.
|
| Google is not the gatekeeper to the internet.
| nix23 wrote:
| This time Google is really going to far with the 1. April
| jokes...oh wait..
| sMarsIntruder wrote:
| Says who invented and imposed FLoC.
| rdiddly wrote:
| Wow, quite the display of projective hypocrisy between the pot
| and kettle.
| sullyj3 wrote:
| They're not wrong, but coming from the creators of AMP this is a
| bit rich.
| izacus wrote:
| AMP was the defense against all content moving into native apps
| like Facebook. Antithesis of open web, with completely locked
| down content, applied DRM and no ability to contribute without
| the review of platform owners.
|
| It's that the endgame you'd have preferred? Ecosystem of apps
| because news web developers refused to make their ad and
| autoplay video ridden websites usable on the mobile devices?
|
| Look at the trends and tell me if you'd have preferred to read
| all your content in an Apple News walled garden instead?
| fakedang wrote:
| > AMP was the defense against all content moving into native
| apps like Facebook.
|
| Google: We will defend you but we'll also strangle you while
| at it.
| izacus wrote:
| Of course, they're a corporation. The question is - why did
| noone else step up and try to address the issue? Other
| corpos just wanted to silo all data into their proprietary
| platforms and opensource/openweb teams just pretended that
| the issue never existed.
| cturner wrote:
| The Australian situation has created an incentive for tech
| companies to consider getting into news-content production, a
| sector that was previously not-lucrative.
|
| Find a struggling newspaper to purchase for a song. That gets you
| a masthead and a basic editorial pipeline. Then, use strong
| salary packages to raid the content talent from the existing
| participants. Alphabet could do this with pocket change.
|
| This is similar to the play the media titans use to capture
| sports broadcast rights - World Series Cricket in the 70s,
| SuperLeague in the 90s.
| walrus01 wrote:
| That's a rather funny claim coming from google, considering we
| are now back in the same situation as we were 20 year ago, when
| people were designing websites to work 'best' on microsoft's IE
| browser. Now a lot of things are being designed to work 'best' on
| Chrome.
|
| At least Microsoft has the benefit of the institutional knowledge
| of having once been as dominant as Google is now.
| mbar84 wrote:
| I don't think that's a fair comparison. Today I develop mostly
| on Chrome, but I don't dread testing for compatibility on
| Firefox or Safari. The standardization is quite good across
| vendors.
|
| Add to that, back then Microsoft had no drive to move the web
| platform forward. IE was not getting better, which is why it
| was eventually eclipsed by Firefox and later Chrome.
| threatofrain wrote:
| Has Google been breaking the web with non-compliant
| implementations of web standards?
| walrus01 wrote:
| More like it's been using its dominant browser market
| position, and "Essential" nature as a search/cloud based
| services operator, to wag the dog of the web standardization
| process.
| threatofrain wrote:
| Which Google-pushed standards were most at fault for making
| websites break on Firefox?
| toyg wrote:
| Have a read: https://mobile.twitter.com/johnath/status/11
| 1687124330162585...
|
| Google are just as bad as MS. End of story.
| Datagenerator wrote:
| Deliberately breaking the performance of YouTube on
| Firefox is fine, because it shows how the non neutral net
| degrades into a television show with lots of commercial
| breaks. No way to opt out while trying to do work on your
| personal computer using the information shared on our
| Internet. None of that, if it's up to Microsoft and
| Google.
| prepend wrote:
| They sort of killed DNT.
| skinkestek wrote:
| They
|
| - break compability or make their sites slow in other
| browsers, sometimes in so interesting ways that it makes it
| hard to defend as just incompetence. Edit, example: didn't
| they go out of their way to find a way to make YouTube crawl
| in Firefox while performing well in Chrome a few months ago?
| IIRC instead of doing it the new straightforward way that was
| supported everywhere they went with a solution that was so
| backwards that it was already deprecated in Chrome as well or
| something?
|
| - make banners on the front page of the worlds most famous
| web property, urging people to change
| hannob wrote:
| I'm using Firefox and the only service that I have to use
| on a regular basis that does not really work in Firefox is
| actually Microsoft Teams.
|
| This is quite ironic given all the "Google killed
| Microsoft's own browser engine" stories.
| happymellon wrote:
| I find Excel in Firefox to be quite broken.
|
| Google is much better at working than Microsoft.
| [deleted]
| mmcnl wrote:
| You're nitpicking. The situation is a night and day
| difference compared to 10-20 years ago.
| Snarwin wrote:
| The YouTube thing was back in 2018:
|
| https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-exec-says-google-slowed-
| yo...
| _flux wrote:
| > break compability or make their sites slow in other
| browsers
|
| "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately
| explained by stupidity"
|
| > make banners on the front page of the worlds most famous
| web property
|
| Well, can't argue with that!
| mmcnl wrote:
| This is not true at all. The web is at a much better state than
| 20 years ago. There may be some thing going on that are not
| ideal, but the it's a night and day difference. I don't know
| why this gets so many upvotes.
| prepend wrote:
| It can be really stupid too, I've had sites not load and
| suggest that I use "modern browsers like Chrome" when I'm
| trying to load it in Safari or Brave. So I think we're back to
| dumdums literally checking user agent.
|
| For a little while, outlook and 365 web didn't work properly in
| safari because of the third party cookies defaults, so the
| suggestion was to use Chrome (rather than just adjusting cookie
| settings).
| Jiejeing wrote:
| Well, considering that microsoft essentially designs their
| websites (see also: teams) to only work on chrome, that is
| rich.
| pxi wrote:
| This story is not directly related to chrome.
|
| In the original version of the legislation, google and facebook
| were required to pay up each time they served an <a> tag that
| pointed news.com sites. That's what google meant by "breaking
| the open web" - having to pay <a href> tax.
|
| This was all fine by Microsoft. They apparently did some deal
| with Murdock in 2019 so appear to have been behind this all
| along. It's all echos of Gates era dealings.
| mattrick wrote:
| Chrome is tangential to the story, but Google calling
| Microsoft out for trying "to break the way the open web
| works" is super hypocritical. Its the pot calling the kettle
| black.
| michaelbrave wrote:
| I can't tell you how many times I have problems with a site in
| Firefox because they only designed it for chrome now, sites
| owned by google are the biggest offenders.
| lowercased wrote:
| oddly enough, most of the time I hit issues with stuff not
| working on safari, but fine on firefox or chrome. I just had
| a bill pay request from someone using 'bill4time.com'
| service. Broke in safari, worked in chrome. I seem to hit
| these situation perhaps once a week or so, where moving to
| chrome or firefox generally 'fixes' it.
| patrickmcnamara wrote:
| AWS is particularly bad with Safari. For some reason, AWS
| asserts that U2F doesn't work on Safari so I have been
| forced to remove 2fa from my account. Yay. And AWS Amplify
| never loads on Safari either.
| [deleted]
| nano-erud wrote:
| bitch fight
| codeulike wrote:
| 'slam' is such a weird verb for this sort of thing, and it only
| seems to turn up in headlines. It is supposed to be a wrestling
| metaphor? Its such an odd mental image.
| kthejoker2 wrote:
| It's slang from around the turn of the 20th century.
|
| No joke, it comes from birdsong hobbyists, when two birds were
| "competing" they would insert deliberately off and loud notes
| to intimidate and silence each other. They named those "slams"
| like a door slam.
|
| That became the slang for the patter of street hawkers when
| they negged you or heckled someone else for laughs and
| attention, and eventually became slang for any kind of insult
| or put down.
| codeulike wrote:
| Wow, thanks. Had no idea.
| EasyTiger_ wrote:
| > Google has launched a scathing attack on Microsoft today,
| accusing it of trying "to break the way the open web works in an
| effort to undercut a rival."
|
| That is some pathological levels of projection.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| "The Kettles are now making self-serving claims and are even
| willing to break the way the open web works in an effort to
| undercut a rival," says Mr Pot.
| FridgeSeal wrote:
| Pot calls kettle black.
|
| Google has probably done more of this single handedly since the
| advent of Chrome than Microsoft has.
|
| Not that I'm absolving MS of any wrongdoing either, but google
| has definitely been far more malicious, and for them to pretend
| otherwise is unscrupulous at best.
| dontblink wrote:
| You must have missed the entire 90s. Microsoft hasn't changed,
| it's just got better PR. Google has it's faults as well, but I
| vastly prefer Google's contribution over Microsoft's.
| supernovae wrote:
| The 90s was 30 years ago.
|
| I was an asshole to my parents in the 90s as an angsty teen.
| If my parents held on to the 90s like I could never change,
| grow or be something different my family would be torn apart.
|
| Perhaps you just need to grow up yourself.
| dontblink wrote:
| Sounds like you're still pretty angsty
| draklor40 wrote:
| *cough* AMP *cough*
| supernovae wrote:
| I find it curious Google pushes amp, yet the new google
| analytics 4 doesn't even support it.
|
| I have a feeling AMP is really dead and now they're looking for
| ways to get news back after forcing so many people to embrace
| that terrible tech.
| bogomipz wrote:
| I'd be curious to hear why you are sensing that AMP is really
| dead? It this just based on Google Analytics 4 or are there
| other signs as well?
| smaryjerry wrote:
| Google, the company that actively tries to make YouTube not work
| on any Amazon device simple because Amazon is a competitor, is
| complaining about someone breaking the open web? Google refused
| to build an app for Amazon devices and even when Amazon had a
| working app that was essentially a browser that visited YouTube
| on their Alexa devices with screens, YouTube changed their
| website for the sole purpose of breaking it on Amazon devices.
| Google has no right to complain here.
| bqmjjx0kac wrote:
| IIRC, Amazon built their own UI around YouTube which meant
| YouTube was not monetizing those views.
|
| Edit:
|
| > A person familiar with Google's thinking on the matter told
| Engadget that a big point of contention had been the fact that
| Amazon implemented what was essentially a hacked version of
| YouTube on both the Echo Show and Fire TV. Rather than work
| with Google to build versions of its apps that work on Amazon's
| devices, Amazon has been trying to do it itself -- a move that
| cuts out features and also likely affects Google's ability to
| collect on some of the ad revenue that comes from its videos.
|
| https://www.engadget.com/2017-12-05-google-blocking-youtube-...
| smaryjerry wrote:
| The update at the bottom details amazons side of the story:
|
| Amazon has responded, and its response points to the unfair
| nature of Google effectively blocking access to the YouTube
| web site based on the type of device being used to access it.
| "Echo Show and Fire TV now display a standard web view of
| YouTube.com and point customers directly to YouTube's
| existing website," Amazon's statement reads. "Google is
| setting a disappointing precedent by selectively blocking
| customer access to an open website. We hope to resolve this
| with Google as soon as possible."
| trident5000 wrote:
| They tried to make YouTube not work on Firefox as well.
| jedberg wrote:
| It still doesn't really work. When I load YouTube in Firefox
| it kind of hangs for a while and then plays in low res. If I
| grab the URL and jump over to Chrome, it instantly play in
| the highest resolution.
| yread wrote:
| Exactly same situation with Windows Phone
| HJain13 wrote:
| > Amazon isn't without fault either. The company dragged its
| feet for years in releasing a proper Prime Video app for
| Android in the Google Play Store. Previously, you had to
| install Amazon's own, separate app store and only then could
| you install Prime Video. It was a sad, convoluted attempt at
| luring users to the Amazon Appstore. Even now, Prime Video
| still doesn't support Chromecast.
|
| > And that's directly tied to Chromecast's absence on
| Amazon.com. Since there's no easy way of watching Prime Video,
| Amazon won't sell it. But it's Amazon's own fault that Prime
| Video doesn't work with Chromecast. Amazon has the power to
| make it happen. What's Google supposed to do in this scenario?
|
| > Amazon's decision to remove popular, well-liked products from
| its store over this spat -- or never sell them to begin with --
| is an ugly example of the company throwing its weight and power
| around. No one should be surprised that Google is crying foul.
| Is the company under any obligation to sell Google Home -- the
| chief rival to its own Echo? Of course not. Them's the breaks.
| But the Chromecast situation is troubling, and Amazon's recent
| halting of sales for certain Nest hardware (with no real
| explanation) seems juvenile. Prime shipping is still a very
| powerful incentive, and Amazon is well aware of that.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/5/16738752/google-youtube-a...
|
| Amazon is nowhere near innocent in their feud
| unimpossible wrote:
| I use Chromecast with Prime. Mine's from 2016 so I don't know
| if they stopped supporting it on newer models. Everything
| else though, I agree with. Big tech, like any monopoly, does
| not play fair.
| tbihl wrote:
| This is old. They work now.
| kuschku wrote:
| > Amazon is nowhere near innocent in their feud
|
| Amazon built the Fire stick to be compatible with Chromecast.
| Google then changed the Chromecast protocols repeatedly to
| prevent this.
|
| Only after that did Amazon ban the Chromecast devices from
| their store.
|
| Tell the whole story, at least.
| stopping wrote:
| "Amazon built the Fire stick to be compatible with
| Chromecast. Google then changed the Chromecast protocols
| repeatedly to prevent this."
|
| I don't believe this is true. Do you have a source?
| ehsankia wrote:
| But still according to your comment, amazon started the
| feud first by banning chromecast, and it just escalated
| from there?
| drusepth wrote:
| If I recall correctly, Google changed the Chromecast
| protocols repeatedly to disable the Fire stick's
| implementation because the Fire was wrapping direct video
| links (e.g. removing all the official YouTube UI/features)
| and stripping ad plays.
| [deleted]
| Shadonototro wrote:
| The Verge sounds very Pro-Microsoft
|
| They used the same techniques for Stadia, they bashed it while
| praising Xbox Cloud
|
| The same with Team vs Zoom
|
| And the same with AWS/GCE vs Azure
|
| Hmm
| throwaway53453 wrote:
| The media is institutionally biased against Google and Facebook
| because they are 'direct competitors' in their heads. Don't get
| me wrong, there are issues with Big Tech, but I don't believe
| the news industry's collapse to be one of them. It's like
| arguing with the printing press or railroads galvanizing the
| dinosaurs of their era.
| supernovae wrote:
| This entire thread is depression and responses like this are
| pure depression. Why does any of this matter? All I see are a
| bunch of apologists or a bunch of people making assumptions and
| no one really discussing anything without their extreme bias
| and prejudices in the way.
|
| The first comments here are people bashing the Microsoft of 20
| years ago..
|
| And this one... "The Verge sounds very Pro-Microsoft" - for no
| other reason than to perpetuate the bias here.
|
| Why do we do this to ourselves people? This is absurd.
|
| The Verge is very much in love with Apple, they're not in love
| with Google. That doesn't make them Pro-Microsoft. The verge
| DID hire a a fantastic Microsoft writer who knows Microsoft
| inside and out, so they're not Oblivious to Microsoft - but
| that doesn't make them "Pro Microsoft".
|
| And for Christ's sake - NONE of what is mentioned here makes
| Microsoft bad. They're a business making products and building
| services doing what businesses do and its certainly not
| Balmer's Microsoft anymore.
|
| Who cares what Google isn't happy with when its painfully
| apparent no one is is happy with anything around here...
| threatofrain wrote:
| > In the middle of all of this, Microsoft was very public about
| its support of Australia's new law, and it even teamed up with
| European publishers to call for online platforms to reach deals
| to pay news outlets for content. Google isn't happy about
| Microsoft getting involved and this is the first big public spat
| we've seen since the Scroogled era.
| gchokov wrote:
| Serious question - does anyone at all still liking Google?
| izacus wrote:
| Liking has nothing to do with law prices about future of the
| web.
|
| We're not sampling chocolate here - think how propping up old
| media with mandatory charges actually helps us and the open
| web?
| sMarsIntruder wrote:
| Unfortunately a lot. I was one of them, loved the Android idea.
| Then a couple of years ago I started migrating to privacy
| oriented services (or at least alternatives), but it's a long
| process.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| Like might be too strong a word. I sometimes grudgingly use
| Google for search because DuckDuckGo - unfortunately,
| frustratingly, bizarrely - doesn't know what operands are.
| onlyfortoday2 wrote:
| ahahahahha funny
| intricatedetail wrote:
| This I don't understand. Why Google only has to pay for news
| content? Why only big news corporations get rewarded but a guy
| with a blog won't be?
| ewindal wrote:
| Because this law is literally just about letting Murdoch cling
| to power. It's such an obviosly corrupt law.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| Where are the institutions that are supposed to protect us
| from corruption that we pay dearly in taxes? This is just so
| wrong. Strong towards the weak, weak towards the strong...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-13 23:01 UTC)