7 ms·

> "All we're asking the tech giants like Facebook and Google to do is negotiate fair deals with news outlets when they profit from their work," Can anyone help

> "All we're asking the tech giants like Facebook and Google to do is negotiate fair deals with news outlets when they profit from their work," Can anyone help me understand this statement? Not sure if it's post lunch lethargy or need for caffeine, but I'm not grasping this argument.

ink_13 3y ago
Agreed, this take is totally backwards. It is the news companies that benefit from having their material on Facebook/Google/etc. The news could disappear from those platforms and they'd be fine. The real problem seems to be that monetizing news content to the point that it can support large, effective organizations has become quite difficult: print ads are basically dead, inserting ads into online content doesn't seem to be working that well, and getting people to pay you directly (i.e., subscriptions) is more of a challenge than ever. Smaller boutique outlets like podcasts or email newsletters (chiefly Substack) have been effective in some cases, but that's not the kind of thing that can fund foreign bureaus or longform investigative journalism.
manuelabeledo 3y ago
Google, Meta, and others, used to (not sure if this is ongoing) fetch news from several outlets and post the headlines and summaries on their own websites, without paying for it. Essentially, they would treat them as creators, but would pay them nothing. Because people usually don't stop to read articles in full, this would also not drive any traffic to the original publishers' websites.
- 908B64B197 3y ago
  > Because people usually don't stop to read articles in full, this would also not drive any traffic to the original publishers' websites. Maybe the fix isn't to go hustle some rent out of "evil foreign tech giants" but simply to... write articles people want to read!
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    There are several issues with that approach. First, it doesn't address the problem, because the problem is that people don't want to read articles. It happens everywhere, even in HN you could often see people commenting on headlines instead of articles. Second, news are supposed to be informative, not appealing. Writing just the things people want to see is how tabloids work. Third, you got it backwards. Google is feeding from the news publishers, not the other way around. Without these, Google would have no news contents. In contrast, other sites like YouTube or Instagram actually host and pay for content. In essence, Google is saying that they don't need to pay for news content they post in their website, but they will pay for it if it is posted as a video.
    - 908B64B197 3y ago
      > the problem is that people don't want to read articles. If the consumer doesn't want a product... it's somewhat the consumer's fault? "but they don't want cigarettes sir! Maybe they just don't understand cigarettes..." > Third, you got it backwards. Google is feeding from the news publishers, not the other way around. Without these, Google would have no news contents. Google feeds the publishers, not the other way around. A significant portion of their traffic comes directly from Google. The other way around simply doesn't happen. Google doesn't have news content. It's a link aggregator. Honestly, they should just de-list Canadians outlet from their platform. Redirect to blogs or international outlets... Let the media companies build their own aggregator if they don't like the current ones.
      - joseph_grobbles 3y ago
        [dead]
      - manuelabeledo 3y ago
        > If the consumer doesn't want a product... it's somewhat the consumer's fault? One could buy a burger at McDonald's immediately, or wait for half hour in line to get a healthier and better sandwich at a shop down the road. The fact that McDonald's is more convenient, does not make it better. Consumers want to eat, and they want to read news, but most of the time they don't want all that comes attached to either. You are of the opinion that we should have newspapers that are only headlines, something easier to digest, but void of content. > Google feeds the publishers, not the other way around. A significant portion of their traffic comes directly from Google. The other way around simply doesn't happen. What do you think Google's business model is? They don't generate any content after all. Do you think they are losing money on search or news? Imagine a world where no one would want Google to index their websites, just because. The world wide web would continue working, but Google would eventually disappear, because they do not create any content themselves.
- thomasahle 3y ago
  Maybe you're talking about Google News, which I don't remember how worked, but what product did Meta have of this kind? Isn't the argument just that when users post links to news stories on Facebook, the feed will grab the headline and first paragraph as a "link preview"? I don't think it's summarizing anything from multiple sites.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    Meta has Facebook News. Again, the issue is that most people only read the headlines [0], which is exacerbated by platforms publishing tirades of them and nothing else. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/03/19/americans-read-headlines-and-not-much-else/?fbclid=IwAR0vtYoHeyDwBEapvzCPsnvn-L9vXAe8oJj5zvRbvjnWDN_ds-pftwcdou0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/03/19/am...
StockHuman 3y ago
The bill’s purpose, like other past attempts at erecting moats around Canadian media in an (always ill-fated) attempt to shield it from foreign competition, folds internet search and social media into “broadcasting,” where a portion of ad impression revenue (etc) generated from that content gets funnelled back to Canadian media corporations. With a conventional definition of broadcasting, a radio show (that broadly transmits on the scarce, finite, government-allocated spectrum) would be beholden to include some Canadian culture in programming, and pay Canadian creators through licensing deals. Where we are now, Canadian media has been granted another moat as their competitiveness continues to wane (so far, only video game production remains healthy and competitive with the world without this style of protectionism). CBC, The Toronto Star, etc cannot hope to compete with the global appeal of The New York Times, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc, so they’re demanding they be made artificially competitive online through boosted presence in online spaces, and paid royalties from that arrangement.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  In short: CYA for Can-Con, which may backfire
- soderfoo 3y ago
  Thanks for the explainer. If they invested half the energy spent on trying to erect protective barriers on innovating and developing a better product they likely wouldn't be in this predicament. Alot easier said than done, I know. With the spate of new media failures recently (Buzzfeed and Vice), maybe this is just a really tough nut to crack.

ink_13 3y ago

Agreed, this take is totally backwards. It is the news companies that benefit from having their material on Facebook/Google/etc. The news could disappear from those platforms and they'd be fine. The real problem seems to be that monetizing news content to the point that it can support large, effective organizations has become quite difficult: print ads are basically dead, inserting ads into online content doesn't seem to be working that well, and getting people to pay you directly (i.e., subscriptions) is more of a challenge than ever. Smaller boutique outlets like podcasts or email newsletters (chiefly Substack) have been effective in some cases, but that's not the kind of thing that can fund foreign bureaus or longform investigative journalism.

manuelabeledo 3y ago

Google, Meta, and others, used to (not sure if this is ongoing) fetch news from several outlets and post the headlines and summaries on their own websites, without paying for it. Essentially, they would treat them as creators, but would pay them nothing. Because people usually don't stop to read articles in full, this would also not drive any traffic to the original publishers' websites.

908B64B197 3y ago
> Because people usually don't stop to read articles in full, this would also not drive any traffic to the original publishers' websites. Maybe the fix isn't to go hustle some rent out of "evil foreign tech giants" but simply to... write articles people want to read!
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  There are several issues with that approach. First, it doesn't address the problem, because the problem is that people don't want to read articles. It happens everywhere, even in HN you could often see people commenting on headlines instead of articles. Second, news are supposed to be informative, not appealing. Writing just the things people want to see is how tabloids work. Third, you got it backwards. Google is feeding from the news publishers, not the other way around. Without these, Google would have no news contents. In contrast, other sites like YouTube or Instagram actually host and pay for content. In essence, Google is saying that they don't need to pay for news content they post in their website, but they will pay for it if it is posted as a video.
  - 908B64B197 3y ago
    > the problem is that people don't want to read articles. If the consumer doesn't want a product... it's somewhat the consumer's fault? "but they don't want cigarettes sir! Maybe they just don't understand cigarettes..." > Third, you got it backwards. Google is feeding from the news publishers, not the other way around. Without these, Google would have no news contents. Google feeds the publishers, not the other way around. A significant portion of their traffic comes directly from Google. The other way around simply doesn't happen. Google doesn't have news content. It's a link aggregator. Honestly, they should just de-list Canadians outlet from their platform. Redirect to blogs or international outlets... Let the media companies build their own aggregator if they don't like the current ones.
    - joseph_grobbles 3y ago
      [dead]
    - manuelabeledo 3y ago
      > If the consumer doesn't want a product... it's somewhat the consumer's fault? One could buy a burger at McDonald's immediately, or wait for half hour in line to get a healthier and better sandwich at a shop down the road. The fact that McDonald's is more convenient, does not make it better. Consumers want to eat, and they want to read news, but most of the time they don't want all that comes attached to either. You are of the opinion that we should have newspapers that are only headlines, something easier to digest, but void of content. > Google feeds the publishers, not the other way around. A significant portion of their traffic comes directly from Google. The other way around simply doesn't happen. What do you think Google's business model is? They don't generate any content after all. Do you think they are losing money on search or news? Imagine a world where no one would want Google to index their websites, just because. The world wide web would continue working, but Google would eventually disappear, because they do not create any content themselves.
thomasahle 3y ago
Maybe you're talking about Google News, which I don't remember how worked, but what product did Meta have of this kind? Isn't the argument just that when users post links to news stories on Facebook, the feed will grab the headline and first paragraph as a "link preview"? I don't think it's summarizing anything from multiple sites.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  Meta has Facebook News. Again, the issue is that most people only read the headlines [0], which is exacerbated by platforms publishing tirades of them and nothing else. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/03/19/americans-read-headlines-and-not-much-else/?fbclid=IwAR0vtYoHeyDwBEapvzCPsnvn-L9vXAe8oJj5zvRbvjnWDN_ds-pftwcdou0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/03/19/am...

StockHuman 3y ago

The bill’s purpose, like other past attempts at erecting moats around Canadian media in an (always ill-fated) attempt to shield it from foreign competition, folds internet search and social media into “broadcasting,” where a portion of ad impression revenue (etc) generated from that content gets funnelled back to Canadian media corporations. With a conventional definition of broadcasting, a radio show (that broadly transmits on the scarce, finite, government-allocated spectrum) would be beholden to include some Canadian culture in programming, and pay Canadian creators through licensing deals. Where we are now, Canadian media has been granted another moat as their competitiveness continues to wane (so far, only video game production remains healthy and competitive with the world without this style of protectionism). CBC, The Toronto Star, etc cannot hope to compete with the global appeal of The New York Times, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc, so they’re demanding they be made artificially competitive online through boosted presence in online spaces, and paid royalties from that arrangement.

red-iron-pine 3y ago
In short: CYA for Can-Con, which may backfire
soderfoo 3y ago
Thanks for the explainer. If they invested half the energy spent on trying to erect protective barriers on innovating and developing a better product they likely wouldn't be in this predicament. Alot easier said than done, I know. With the spate of new media failures recently (Buzzfeed and Vice), maybe this is just a really tough nut to crack.