Canada says Google will pay $74 million annually to Canadian news industry under new online law::Canada’s government says it has reached a deal with Google for the company to contribute $100 million Canadian dollars annually to the country’s news industry

  • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    True, thank you for pointing that out. I still disagree with the idea that you should have to pay to link to another web site. If they’re rehosting content from that website, like an article summary or picture, than absolutely. A link alone makes no sense, that’s driving traffic to that website. In any other business you’d be paying for referrals/finder fees for new customers, not the other way around.

    • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I fully agree. The goal of most websites is to get linked by Google, the argument that Google should then have to pay for giving the websites what they want anyways is weird.

      I also don’t feel like the argument that it’s ok just because it targets wealthy companies changes whether the actual law makes sense or not.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is not link aggregation, it’s the fact that most of those covered by it actively attempt to keep you from visiting the site. Google for instance, usually throws the main hook of articles into a summary, or moves you to an amp page which isn’t actually beneficial to the news site as they get no revenue for it. Similarly, Facebook is taking active steps to keep you on site and never visiting the news site in question.

      So it’s not “just hosting a link” as you are putting it, it’s “hosting a link, while actively going to great lengths to never actually let the end user go to the site.”

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        AMP is something web sites opt into by building an AMP version of their site. The fact that you’re saying an AMP page is diverting traffic from a site makes me think you’re not qualified to talk about this stuff.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          AMP is something websites opt into, absolutely. However opting out has a major potential to hurt your placement on search results. AMP is also limited in what kinda of ad formats it can serve. Want to take a guess at which work best? Google Adsense. Most other forms of advertisement just aren’t compatible, which can directly effect ad revenue.

          Edit: Just realized I previously said “no revenue” which is incorrect because it can still produce revenue. So while “no revenue” is absolutely possible, it isn’t guaranteed. That’s what I get for using generalizations though.