PaulK writes:
I don’t think Google exactly caved - they went to negotiations. But they obviously needed the news media enough that simply banning links was not their preferred option.
Unless the news media has a legitimate negotiating position then Google surrendered to political pressures, i.e., caved. They didn't want to be placed in the situation Facebook finds itself in now. Thinking strategically, they saw in their future congressional and parliamentary hearings on this and other matters related to their Internet dominance and decided that it was in their best interest not to add to the list of their offenses, both real and imagined. It was that they felt they didn't need more bad publicity at this time, not that they felt the news media had a legitimate gripe.
Because they aren’t making enough. And it’s no secret that newspapers tend to lose money.
News media businesses have a problem not of Google's making, and in fact Google is a net benefit to them, acting as a key resource sending eyeballs to their websites where they'll see ads that the news media gets paid for. Google bears no responsibility for bad news media financials, and in fact makes them better. If the news media thinks things are bad now, they'd be a lot worse with no Google.
The plight of the news media is partly that they're a victim of circumstance and is partly a disaster of their own making. They were extremely slow to recognize the increasing importance of the Internet in the late 90's and early 2000's, and they've been behind ever since. Many news sites plead with visitors to subscribe, and for my own part I'd like to, but I can't justify more than a few subscriptions. I'd love to subscribe to the Boston paper and my local paper and the Wall Street Journal and The Guardian and so forth, but that would represent a sizable monthly outlay.
The news media has a serious financial problem, and while going after Google and Facebook now might be politically expedient it is not a solution for the long term because Google and Facebook are not the cause of their problems.
The Australian bill also mischaracterizes what Google and Facebook do with news. The law requires companies like Google and Facebook to negotiate with news publishers on a dollar value for their content to compensate them when Google or Facebook make "content available" on their platforms. The bill defines "content available" as "if the content is reproduced on the service, or is otherwise placed on the service, or if a link to the content or an extract of the content is provided on the service."
But Google and Facebook do not themselves reproduce news content on their platforms. They only provide links, always with the headline and often with an additional tag line and image. The news outlets explicitly make this information available with tags using the "og:title" and "og:image" properties. The news media
*wants* Google and Facebook to have this information to make the link/headline/image attractive enough that people will click on it.
On Facebook the egregious nature of the proposed bill is even worse, because content
*is* reproduced on Facebook, but it is done by the news media companies themselves on their own Facebook pages. This is thick with irony and with opportunities for abuse. The more links and content a news media company places on their own Facebook page the more compensation they could demand from Facebook. No wonder Facebook is balking.
There's another problem. A free and open press is essential to the workings of a democracy, but once they start seeking outside funding sources they relinquish their independence. The Australian model insures that going forward there will be negotiations over the amount of compensation (and over search algorithms for Google), giving Google and Facebook the opportunity to exert pressure for more favorable coverage. And the system is ripe for abuse. If a news company doesn't treat Google right then they might find links to their site bumping down to page two or worse and leading to arguments over search algorithms.
The news media needs to find the means within themselves to independently fund their own operations. They should not jump into bed with companies like Google and Facebook through legislative fiat. They can't set a precedent of forcing the "deep pockets of the moment" to fund them. Why can't there be an EvC law that requires payments to EvC whenever somebody links to us? If that sounds completely backwards to you that's because it is.
More and more news sources are dropping their hardcopy publications. Newsweek was the first I knew of that did this. As the news media drops hardcopy publishing and the costs associated with it and its distribution they should be doing better, not worse, yet they're doing worse. Website ads get funneled onto webpages automatically by prewritten software - news media costs of publication and distribution should have dropped dramatically, yet their financials keep getting worse. Both Google and the news media make money through ads. If ads work for Google then they should also work for the news media. And some news media, like WSJ, WaPo and NYT, also get subscription money in addition to ad money.
My state has no income tax and is always short of revenue. It needs money. Google publishes links to my state's websites. My state should go after Google for payment every time Google publishes a link to a state website. Makes just as much sense as what the Australian news media is doing.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
(1)