And if I was a search engine I’d remove the summary from the result but link the the title to a cached snapshot such as internet archive whenever possible.
I doubt the reform will be a reality in its current form however.
Germany's experience: Google did not display news snippets from publishers unless they waived their right to be paid. They all eventually capitulated. Spain's experience: the Spanish version of this law did not have an opt out provision. Thus, Google News simply closed shop in Spain.
For some reason, the regulators do not believe Google when Google says they do not make money on Google News. But it is true. Google News is a "halo" property. Like Google Keep, it isn't itself a money-making endeavor. Google pays for it on the theory that providing that service will make the overall suite of services more compelling to users. But it's not worth much to Google, and you can see this by the paucity of Google's investment in the property compared to almost anything else.
Maybe the theory is that Google will stay in business and pay because they're worried about competitors filling the gap? But if this service is not economically viable for Google to run, how could it possibly be more viable for a competitor to step into this space? The outcome of a link tax will simply be that Google News ceases to operate in the EU, is my bet. That's a fine result for some people, although I doubt it's the intended one. But I guess that the EU politicians and bureaucrats will delude themselves into believing some other outcome is possible until the very moment it happens.
Thing that really makes this puzzling is Google News barely shows snippets any more. At least when I load the page, it only shows article titles.
The publishers and regulators are such fools on this topic. They think people need the news. The opposite is the truth. The news needs viewers. If it's harder to find interesting news, people spend their time on something else.
In principle it’s an important idea, otherwise all online retailers will set themselves up in a zero tax domicile and get an unjustified 5-20% advantage over local retailers.
Displaying the final price _after_ the user has put the CC number is not the most trustworthy experience :)
I don't know how this is done in the wild, but some large companies often have TLDs per country and only accept CCs from a given country on a given site version, for example (and they redirect you by IP).
Yes, it is. Let's say you're running a one man business selling digital knitting patterns. Before the law you could sell to anyone in the EU and you'd only have to deal with your own country's tax authority. After the law you had to deal with the tax authority of every single EU country you had a buyer in. Is it worth selling 10 patterns to Lithuania? No, because filing taxes to the Lithuanian tax authority is more expensive than what you would've made from the sales. Thus, you don't sell to Lithuania.
There was no minimum threshold. Earned €0.01 from another country? Better file those taxes. Almost every single country has a minimum VAT threshold, but EU politicians in their infinite wisdom didn't think of that.
This situation persisted until this year, where there's finally a minimum VAT threshold in place. It's low (€10,000) but at least it's something. It only took them FOUR YEARS to do this. I wonder how many micro and small businesses closed as a result.
> After the law you had to deal with the tax authority of every single EU country you had a buyer in.
Incorrect, that's why the VAT MOSS scheme exists https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/taxation/vat/vat-digit...
The vat threshold is definitely welcome though
The VAT rulings are a mess. The correct thing to do is let remote retailers drive the sales tax rates to zero for things that can be bought over the internet. The complexities of trying to pretend all sales are local in a world where long-range shipping and the internet exist aren't worth it.
GDPR is especially indicative of the EU's true nature because, of course, it does not apply to the EU itself. The Commission was in violation on the day it came into force, on this being noticed they announced that the Commission does not have to comply with GDPR like everyone else does.
The EU has a long track record of passing awful, business-killing laws whilst simultaneously ignoring any of its own laws or treaties the moment they get in the way of what the EU's leadership wants. It's a part of the world that implements rule by law.
For companies with total supplies under 100.000 EUR, a single piece of evidence (which can be IP geocoding) is enough as of January 2019, thanks to this amendment:
The one that approximately no one follows?
It will happen again.
There is still a trilogue next week plus the vote if I understand correctly
Not to mention other institutions have come against it, like the International Federation of Journalists https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/author... who discovered they are going to get the short end of the deal and Bertelsmann (though probably for bad reasons)
One good comment I read somewhere: at some point, politicians are thinking that a proposal being hated by all sides means it's "fair"
(And previously, https://juliareda.eu/2019/02/article-13-worse/)
Hell, barely anyone gets it anyway. Germany is certainly not alone to blame. How can the competitiveness of Germany increase for more than a decade without any other EU country caring? In the past they devalued their currencies, so why didn't they act now? Also Germany violates the 6% export surplus limit, no one cares!
Think about it - German "competitiveness" is just another way to say that they work harder than everyone else. They save money that the ECB then gives to foreign governments through QE. They make things and send them to other parts of Europe. In return they get what are effectively IOUs from the other countries - TARGET2 balances that are supposed to imply a transfer of "real" euros (i.e. paper money) one day, but which are so huge those transfers will never actually happen. There are no realistic scenarios in which an equally sized flow of goods or services ever comes back to the poor Germans in return for their efforts: the only plausible outcome is that either the internal imbalances are written off for good by the EU authorities, or that other countries exit the Eurozone and the imbalances are written off amidst acrimony and bitterness. I cannot see any realistic path to Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, eastern Europe etc ever becoming as productive as the Germans are, let alone more productive as would be required to restore balance to the system, if only because the Germans never seem to give themselves pay rises.
In the end Germany will be the biggest loser of the EU project, simply because they put the most into it to start with.
Well our politicians see it different. Germany was able to have government surpluses and decrease the countries debt. We have low unemployment. Relative to other EU countries, especially France, we look pretty healthy. Despite the domestic market being a mess and the average worker being stripped of normal wage increases, it's hard to argument against these "successes" without explaining in detail the macroeconomic aspects and the consequences in the long run.
> German "competitiveness" is just another way to say that they work harder than everyone else.
Actually France has about the same productivity as Germany, always had since introduction of the Euro. I think what you mean is productivity in relation to wages, namely unit labor cost. Meaning germans get way too low wages for their productivity.
And yes Germany will be the biggest loser: The government and export industry gained the most, they will lose the most. Millions of additional unemployed people, hatred from the other (former) Euro countries, far right/left parties may have a shot of getting to power, etc..
And of course Switzerland also doesn't use the euro and has a balanced budget, and a strong economy.
So to me the domestic German narrative that these sorts of economic success are to do with the eurozone seem wrong. Countries in Europe and which are not using the Euro have been able to obtain these results too. Probably if the euro had never happened Germany would be doing just as well today, and their purchasing power would have effectively gone up even if the wages hadn't because imports would have become so much cheaper.
Good point about productivity vs unit labor cost. That's indeed what I meant.
But it affects non-eurozone countries as well of course. For example the US basically critized Germany (long before Trump) as a currency manipulator, Trump just speaks it out loud. Because again, without the Euro, Germanys own currency would value up and the massive exports would be impossible.
So I think you can't deny that some dramatic change happend when the Euro was introduced and that it's still happening today.
Now if you assume Germany did not do wage dumping and the Euro wasn't introduced, could Germany be in the same position as it is now? No. Look at the graphic again and pin the red line (foreign countries) to the zero position. That in turn means, you now have to pull another line down! Because remember, all lines have to sum up to zero. Which line would you pull down? Ask private households to stop saving and spend much more money? Or increase company tax (while every other country is decreasing it)? The only solution left would be for the government to make deficits.
Currently, other countries make deficits for Germany. This is not sustainable.
For Euro to work in the long term, Germany (or parts of it) and some other regions should finance heftily (8% of Germany GDP is an often quoted number) for development of Spain, Greece and other regions. But the problem is that EU is not a country. There is no European people with a deep feeling of solidarity to each other. Germans from Bavaria agree (reluctantly) to pay for Saxony, but they definitely won't pay for Portugal. There is no solution in sight, really.
The France government ran with the ball for the exact same reason.
Do you know the historical origins of the Euro and how France was worried to have a unified Germany with low interest rates next door? So, yeah.
The Euro has its problems but your post just sounds like disinformation to be honest
Here is the story of the euro: stupid French technocrats invented it. Some unknown counsel in Fabius office when he was a prime minister even explained someday how he and a colleague pulled the "3% deficit rule" out of their noses because it sounded right, back then in 1984. This would be oh so funny if it wasn't so pathetic thinking about how incompetent all these serious-looking people are.
Mitterrand said in 1992 "J'ai cloué les mains de l'Allemagne à la table" (I nailed Germany's hands to the table). That was a terrible idea from the start. The bet was that as it cannot function without an integrated financial and tax systems, these will be forced into existence against everyone's will (but those of the most convinced federalists). And guess what? no integration happened, and now we're hosed.
We're essentially arguing sides in a commercial dispute, because we've been led to think that using Google is akin to running software under our control.
How did that end up working out? What does passion and experience matter if the only real voice is a pile of money and favors in the hands of a lobbyist? The FCC is so corrupt/captures that it didn’t make a bit of difference, unless you count catharsis from speaking against it as a positive result.
I suspect general age-based conservatism also makes many write off the currently appearing problems. For example, interpreting this recent censorship push as well and good, rather than as a direct dismantling of the revolution of two decades ago.
And sure, it's great that Reddit et al did that blackout. But realistically that is primarily marketing for their customers and employees. Most of the energy in the Net Neutrality battle is about who will be commercial winners and losers. For instance, Netflix would have no problem with regulation that would defend their position yet say allow discrimination of BitTorrent traffic - this is the hazard I'm highlighting with the thinking that companies are going to stand up for individual rights.
I would imagine most people arguing about this have no illusions about how under their control Google is. They're arguing the same reason people argue about other policy questions: because it will affect them, either positively or negatively, and because it's fun.
> lack of Internet champions, but plenty of Web champions
Pedantry. A web champion is a subtype of an internet champion. The US has plenty of both.
It's not pedantry. It's disingenuous to equate Web Giants as standing up for Internet rights, when they're really just optimizing for their bottom line. While the two concepts start off aligned, what happens is that the companies compromise in a way that preserves their profits, yet still destroys the freedom. This actually sets up a barrier to competing with them, called regulatory capture. Witness that it wasn't enough for Google to simply suffer the DMCA, they went beyond and created a whole slew of systems to proactively police their users' activities.
The obvious difficulty is there's little money in it, as the benefits are distributed throughout society rather than captured by a centralized company. My overall point is that looking towards the tech giants to defend our own rights is folly.
(They do interface with several early Internet protocols such as SMTP. But that's better looked at as mining content from non-web protocols, which they'd have no intrinsic problem deprecating like XMPP)
For example, I don't think anyone will care to sign contracts with DuckDuckGo or any other small competitor. This means that they will not be able to compete with Google in EU market.
Currently we have also Bing. But Bing AFAIK is bleeding money from Microsoft already, so they may end up just cutting it off from the EU.
So, Google will end with a total, true monopoly.
Funny thing is that even now everyone want to be on Google. Literally all the money that Google is making is because people want to be visible on Google. Media companies will sign anything to get there. If Google offers them "we will pay you nothing", they will have to agree. If EU forces media to ask for payment (like Spain did) they will ask for 0.01 euro for a year of being indexed by Google. If EU forces media to ask for some "reasonable" price, then Google will refuse with knowledge that no one else will be able to afford that anyway.
Similar process will happen with media. Google will not bother to sign deals with small media companies. The biggest media companies will benefit. Actually, this is may be the actual reason behind this whole shit show. Cutting of small media competition. But if I had to bet, I would bet on media ad politicians being just stupid.
What does that mean? A free and open internet means history will be erased or something?
Can they veto it, or do they have to take it whether they like it or not?
Edit: In response to one of the comments, which points out that US is not homogeneous in the full sense of the word.
Note that more than half of American's top tech companies were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants.