
Europe's Google News Tax Makes No Sense - adventured
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-23/europe-s-google-news-tax-makes-no-sense
======
Grishnakh
They're still trying this? As the article pointed out, it was tried before in
Germany and Spain with terrible results for the publishers.

I say go ahead and pass the law, then see what happens. If the publishers want
it so much, let them have it. Let's see how many go out of business.

------
Crosseye_Jack
My issue is with the term "news aggregator". The idea is that is a news
aggregator is hosting copywriten data. So would mearly using the headline and
linking to the site count? What about the Tl;DR bots that places like reddit
has thanks to their users. Would their users be infringing, the site
infringing for hosting the link with the copy written headline as a link? Are
these news outlets so out of pocket by leading users to their content?

For me (using my phone ATM as I never hardly ever use Google News anyway) all
news.google.co.uk gives me as a brief summary of an article to basically get
me to click the link. They only neg side I can see if that under the "more"
fold there are links to other websites covering the same thing, so while I
stay away from lets say the Daily Mail google will offer me links to say BBC
or Sky News as well. So maybe instead of DM getting my traffic BBC will
instead. But personally I wouldn't of clicked the DM link anyway and not
clicked more and scrolled down till I found something of interest to me, I
would of just kept scrolling.

If Google were copying major parts of the article so users not having the need
to click though to the whole then I can see their point but that has not been
the experience I've had from news aggregators (inc Google). They have just
given me the headline and maybe the paragraph below the headline and then I've
decided if I want to click or not. Which would of been on their home page
anyway.

If a news site becomes so click baity to earn a click just for me to back out
seconds later they never should of earnt that click in the first place, so in
my eyes they are actually the ones ripping off their ad networks for baiting
clicks to earn ad impressions and not Google and the like for pointing users
to those links.

What me to click the link and give you ad impressions? Write content I want to
read and I will come visit you directly anyway after I've found your site from
Search Engines like Google as well as the clicks news aggregators create for
you.

If I'm completely missing the point please let me know. I've seen this go on
for a couple of years now and I still don't understand why they wouldn't want
their content listed on the likes of Google OR are they just trying to double
dip (get rev from ads and get the likes to Google to pony up for linking to
them? If that's the case then I'm not sure where I would stand on Google jut
delisting them. Sure they ovb feel the traffic Google create isn't worth it,
but I also don't want Google "censoring" content I may be interested in just
because Google have to pay to list it. If they (they people asking for this)
were really pissed about it then surely they can just ask their dev teams to
update robots.txt so Google doesn't scrape their site in the first place.

