As a Canadian, should we be worried about a link tax?

[YellowJersey]

So there's increasing talk of a "link tax" whereby platforms like google and FB would have to pay news publishers etc etc etc. We all know the context.

 

But I'm confused. Wouldn't sharing links on FB or having news show up in search results help publishers by directing traffic to their websites? If google/fb don't allow links to news sites to be posted or show up in search results, wouldn't that decrease traffic in publishers' websites?

 

 What is it that I'm not getting here?

[Kilrah]

Yes, which is why it makes no sense. They want the cake and eat it too, get the traffic AND be paid for it in addition, which is quite the opposite of how things have been forever and the reason why everyone takes them to their word and simply won't link to them anymore and let them enjoy the loss.

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, YellowJersey said:

If google/fb don't allow links to news sites to be posted or show up in search results, wouldn't that decrease traffic in publishers' websites?

yes, short term that's likely. but on the other hand, did these sites ask Google for them to be linked in Google (and possibly get parts of their contents posted as well)? 

 

if they did I don't see why Google should pay anything, if they didn't Google should pay up or just not link to them (and therfore not post the contents even partly) 

 

it's pretty simple really? Google thrives as a search engine, their other services, no one would use them if it wasn't for the search engine. 

 

 

[Master Disaster]

2 hours ago, Kilrah said:

Yes, which is why it makes no sense. They want the cake and eat it too, get the traffic AND be paid for it in addition, which is quite the opposite of how things have been forever and the reason why everyone takes them to their word and simply won't link to them anymore and let them enjoy the loss.

 

5 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

yes, short term that's likely. but on the other hand, did these sites ask Google for them to be linked in Google (and possibly get parts of their contents posted as well)? 

 

if they did I don't see why Google should pay anything, if they didn't Google should pay up or just not link to them (and therfore not post the contents even partly) 

 

it's pretty simple really? Google thrives as a search engine, their other services, no one would use them if it wasn't for the search engine. 

 

 

The crux of the matter is actually advertising, not the content.

 

Google & Facebook are making bank from running adverts alongside content they didn't create while the people who are writing the news can't gets advertisers on board since they're all already advertising on the big platforms.

[Mark Kaine]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

The crux of the matter is actually advertising, not the content.

 

Google & Facebook are making bank from running adverts alongside content they didn't create while the people who are writing the news can't gets advertisers on board since they're all already advertising on the big platforms.

yeah that makes more sense than what I wrote... I didn't think of it like that, more in general how Google became just too powerful with not many alternatives, but this makes even more sense why other sites would want compensation... 

 

Regardless, it's a good thing imo, but also feels like way too late. better late than never tho, I guess. ~

[Master Disaster]

Just now, Mark Kaine said:

yeah that makes more sense than what I wrote... I didn't think of it like that, more in general how Google became just too powerful with not many alternatives, but this makes even more sense why other sites would want compensation... 

 

Regardless, it's a good thing imo, but also feels like way too late. better late than never tho, I guess. ~

Google especially since they're very well known as an advertisement platform for the entire internet. Facebook might run ads alongside news but Google are literally serving ads, they get paid to serve and to run them from the same company.

 

In a very obtuse way it almost makes sense that Google should have to pay to show content they didn't actually create since they get 2 different revenue streams from it and the creators get nothing. It would be like PewDiePie stealing a video from a YouTube nobody, uploading it to his channel, monetising it twice, giving the creator no credit at all and the middle finger when they ask for some of the advertising money he makes from their work.

[Kilrah]

3 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

In a very obtuse way it almost makes sense that Google should have to pay to show content they didn't actually create

But they don't "show content", they just link to it on the original publisher's site.

If they showed content then yes, and it seems to be an agreement they reached in France, show actual news stories and pay the news outlets for that. But having to pay just to link is flawed in principle, that's not how the internet works. 

[Mark Kaine]

3 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

But they don't "show content", they just link to it on the original publisher's site.

If they showed content then yes, and it seems to be an agreement they reached in France, show actual news stories and pay the news outlets for that. But having to pay just to link is flawed in principle, that's not how the internet works. 

come on they do show it - there's always some parts of the content under the link so in most cases you don't have to even click the link and know what you wanted to know... 

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

But they don't "show content", they just link to it on the original publisher's site.

If they showed content then yes, and it seems to be an agreement they reached in France, show actual news stories and pay the news outlets for that. But having to pay just to link is flawed in principle, that's not how the internet works. 

Fair point but the fact remains, if Google (and others) didn't aggregate all news from all sources into a single feed people would be forced to visit the actual sites to find what they're looking for. A user being able to jump directly to an article without having to navigate the rest of the site at all 100% has a material impact of the platforms advertising revenue stream. Pair that with the fact Google & Facebook run ads alongside the links and you can see why they're a little pissed.

 

TBC I'm not suggesting the link tax is the best solution to the problem but the problem does exist.

[WillOfTheLand]

I'm no expert, but this feels like it could break virtually the whole of the internet.  Don't get me wrong I'm one of those people who think news publishers should have as much funding as they need, because quite frankly we need them, but with how many clicks news links get and bots posting them everywhere, I doubt facebook will be the only platform to block all linking, which would likely have the same effect on news publishers; nobody reads the news, nobody goes to their site, they get resigned to the dust bin of history.

I say this because I hit up r/worldnews every morning to find the latest stories, if suddenly sites halted linking to pages of news articles, I know I, and many others, would never see the news, because I don't watch TV and I would not be scrolling through the hundreds of news sites every hour to see what's been posted. The only way the news makes it to most people is the crowd sourcing that is the internet doing what it does best and sifting through all the information with sheer numbers.

[Mark Kaine]

they seem to actually have changed this already, I just looked up "news usa" and only the headlines were shown, Google can be fast to cover their asses, I already knew lol... 

 

However, this is what I mean they do show the contents of other sites (which is btw very convenient, but I see how other sites could get pissed about it...) 

 

 

 

(btw does someone know if the sim pin attempts reset after successful attempt? : P couldn't find a definitive answer for that...) 

[Kilrah]

11 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

if Google (and others) didn't aggregate all news from all sources into a single feed people would be forced to visit the actual sites to find what they're looking for

Except they wouldn't.

People read those news because they're right in their feed, they wouldn't go and look for them otherwise. Those who do are already going there directly.

 

It's about the evolution of the value of news to people. I used to follow what was going on in general news but just don't care anymore and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one, I only follow news on the specific subjects I'm interested in, through specialized outlets like LTT and pay for them (floatplane...).

 

If people don't care about your product any more then there's the question of the value of it in the first place, and I see these attempts like they're not able to provide a product that people want enough to give it any value and resort to trying to force them to pay for something they don't need anyway. 

 

  

7 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

does someone know if the sim pin attempts reset after successful attempt?

Yep of course, you can't be expected to replace your sim because you typo'd your password 3 times over years...

[Master Disaster]

8 minutes ago, WillOfTheLand said:

I'm no expert, but this feels like it could break virtually the whole of the internet.  Don't get me wrong I'm one of those people who think news publishers should have as much funding as they need, because quite frankly we need them, but with how many clicks news links get and bots posting them everywhere, I doubt facebook will be the only platform to block all linking, which would likely have the same effect on news publishers; nobody reads the news, nobody goes to their site, they get resigned to the dust bin of history.

I say this because I hit up r/worldnews every morning to find the latest stories, if suddenly sites halted linking to pages of news articles, I know I, and many others, would never see the news, because I don't watch TV and I would not be scrolling through the hundreds of news sites every hour to see what's been posted. The only way the news makes it to most people is the crowd sourcing that is the internet doing what it does best and sifting through all the information with sheer numbers.

It won't. Google have already backed down and signed deals with Australian news outlets. If Facebook want to try to be martyrs then I reckon they'll be alone in that endeavour.

[Pixel5]

5 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

It won't. Google have already backed down and signed deals with Australian news outlets.

yes google has deals with news outlet sin many places that have these laws but its not what you think it is.

These deals basically exempt google from paying anything because for the news outlets its a bigger loss to be filtered out on google then it is to not get anything but still be on google.

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

26 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Yep of course, you can't be expected to replace your sim because you typo'd your password 3 times over years...

yeah well I figured that but my Samsung phone showed me a "1" yesterday while unlocking my phone... man, how I hate Samsung... worst phone ever lol.. 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

It's about the evolution of the value of news to people. I used to follow what was going on in general news but just don't care anymore and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one

yeah sure but the point is they do show other people's content in the search results, you often don't even have to click the link because the answer is already layed out to you (like in the example above) which again, is convenient, but then they should either only show Google's own content, or pay for the stuff they show... 

 

And while I'm not sure why that didn't work with news just now when I tried, it used to be like that until yesterday - and something tells me it'll change back soon enough too - again, in almost all cases there really isn't any need to click links if you're just looking for quick info, even just the headlines are enough for me personally most of the time - I don't really want to click on news sites anyway to go through their dumb cookie settings and deny shortcuts bull, just to be greeted by a pay wall soon after lol ~

[Kilrah]

8 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

you often don't even have to click the link because the answer is already layed out to you (like in the example above)

I don't see that in any of the examples above, plus they seem to be the type of garbage articles that are there just to trick you to click to see more but then don't give any actual help... Those should really die IMO.

[Mark Kaine]

21 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

don't see that in any of the examples above

those aren't the best examples tbh... also im just checking... Google really *already* changed this, for example you used to be able to click "show more" which often actually showed you everything you needed to know - usually in bullet points form (I'm sure I have screen shots of this because that's really a convenient way to get and keep certain info) this now simply opens the actual link...

 

I also just found out other search engines still do this, and that's why I'm switching now... this change - if it isn't just a random coincidence - made Google search completely useless for me already. 

Canada / Australia 1 : 0 Google 

 

 

[WillOfTheLand]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

It won't. Google have already backed down and signed deals with Australian news outlets. If Facebook want to try to be martyrs then I reckon they'll be alone in that endeavour.

While I have no doubt google can afford it what I'm also worried about is smaller sites like the LTT forums, I haven't used them for long but I quite like them and wouldn't want them to change because linus is now hemorrhaging money from them.

 

Actually after reading Pixel5's post and looking over my own post if that is the case it seems like we could be headed into a situation like the IRS and CRA where they only bother to crack down on the little guys because it's to much work to go after the big spenders which is a bit disconcerting.

[8tg]

You guys see ads and click on them?

what is this, 2003?

[Master Disaster]

Just now, 8tg said:

You guys see ads and click on them?

You think ads need to be clicked on to generate revenue?

Just now, 8tg said:

what is this, 2003?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Alan G]

This is a complicated issue that is being played out at both the national and local level.  I think Australia is the first nation to actively look at this and they are being supported by Rupert Murdoch who owns several traditional newspapers there.  Google at first threatened to prevent their search engine from being used but Microsoft quickly stepped in to say that they would gladly pay the tax and that Bing is a good alternative for that market (I make no judgement about this and I mainly use Google for searches).  I think Google is relenting but Facebook is still playing hardball.  There is a very good discussion of all this in Kara Swisher's Sway podcast interview with Microsoft's Brad Smith HERE (there is a transcript link if you don't want to listen to the podcast).

 

My home state of Maryland was the first in the US to pass legislation to tax Internet advertising.  Money will go to education support here. Google, Amazon, and Facebook are mounting a legal challenge.  I suspect this will be litigated and eventually make its way to the Supreme Court for a final decision.  More is HERE.  I believe that there will be some form of tax but it will differ in various geographic areas.

[Rocketdog2112]

With any luck this tax will put all these so called Fact Checkers out of business.

[Slottr]

@YellowJersey @WillOfTheLand I have merged your threads due to their similarities

[kpluck]

9 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

did these sites ask Google for them to be linked in Google (and possibly get parts of their contents posted as well)?

Yes, they did, as soon as they put up their websites, that is how the internet works. Hopefully all search engines will continue to do what  Facebook is doing now, stop linking to the news sites. Let them dry up and blow away. They are mostly garbage anyway.

 

-kp

[Lurick]

4 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

With any luck this tax will put all these so called Fact Checkers out of business.

So the regular news can "fact check" and control the narrative instead like the good ol days?

 

Edit:

It's also funny because this isn't being pushed any small publishers either, it's the old and legacy news companies which are fading and want more money because they couldn't find better ways to advertise and monetize the content on their sites. If you look at the Australian law Google/FB/etc would have to tell them, in advance, of any algorithm changes before they go live giving the large companies the keys to the kingdom to crush other competition faster.