Google Vows To Stop Linking To New Zealand News If Forced To Pay For Content (apnews.com)
- Reference: 0175192745
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/10/04/2123213/google-vows-to-stop-linking-to-new-zealand-news-if-forced-to-pay-for-content
- Source link: https://apnews.com/article/google-news-zealand-media-digital-bargaining-meta-26a85c5690378316d1b7e770529462b5
> Google said Friday it will stop linking to New Zealand news content and will reverse its support of local media outlets if the government passes a law forcing tech companies to pay for articles displayed on their platforms. The vow to sever Google traffic to New Zealand news sites -- made in a blog post by the search giant on Friday -- echoes strategies the firm deployed as [1]Australia and [2]Canada prepared to enact similar laws in recent years. It followed a surprise announcement by New Zealand's government in July that lawmakers would advance a bill forcing tech platforms to strike deals for sharing revenue generated from news content with the media outlets producing it.
>
> The government, led by center-right National, had opposed the law in 2023 when introduced by the previous administration. But the loss of more than 200 newsroom jobs earlier this year -- in a national media industry that totaled 1,600 reporters at the 2018 census and has likely shrunk since -- prompted the current government to reconsider forcing tech companies to pay publishers for displaying content. The law aims to stanch the flow offshore of advertising revenue derived from New Zealand news products.
If the media law passes, Google New Zealand Country Director Caroline Rainsford said the firm would need to change its involvement in the country. "Specifically, we'd be forced to stop linking to news content on Google Search, Google News, or Discover surfaces in New Zealand and discontinue our current commercial agreements and ecosystem support with New Zealand news publishers."
Google's licensing program in New Zealand contributed "millions of dollars per year to almost 50 local publications," she added.
[1] https://news.slashdot.org/story/20/07/31/1645251/australia-to-make-facebook-google-pay-for-news-in-world-first?sdsrc=rel
[2] https://news.slashdot.org/story/22/10/23/2123212/facebook-warns-it-could-block-news-in-canada-over-proposed-legislation
If they believe Google is bad for business (Score:4, Insightful)
If these companies believe that Google is bad for business they can just edit their robots.txt to prevent Google from crawling their website and linking to their content and stealing their precious revenue. Of course that's not what they really want, which is to force Google to pay them and to force them to link their content so they have no choice but to pay them. More rent seeking behavior! Just what the Internet needs.
Re: If they believe Google is bad for business (Score:2, Informative)
Google has market dominance in search. The reason companies can't just turn off indexing is because it's economic suicide because of that market dominance.
Now, it's not illegal to have a monopoly, but it is illegal (at least in theory but basically not in practice any more thanks to chucklefucks like you) to use that monopoly position in one market (search) to leverage position in another market (advertising). Guess who is also market dominant in online advertising, who get paid for the ad impressions for s
Re: (Score:3)
Let them index the main page so your website still shows up, but don't let them link to specific articles. It's not that hard. But like I said it's just companies thinking they deserve to get paid. Let companies that can't figure out how to make money die so that they can be replaced by others that can instead of mandating everyone else prop up ones that no one wants to give money to.
Google abusing a monopoly position is a different matter entirely and trying to tangle it up with this just makes for more
Re: If they believe Google is bad for business (Score:1)
"is another matter entirely"
*facepalm*
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of traffic websites get from people visiting the main page is basically zilch. The overwhelming majority of traffic comes from deeplinking, which comes from searching for articles and sharing content (eg: Google/Meta). Google and Meta both make money by taking some of that deeplink content, which keeps users on their property, making them money using content they did not produce. Companies can't afford to tell Google and Meta because Google and Meta are effectively the only game in town for peopl
Re: (Score:3)
> monopoly position in one market (search)
Search isn't a market, though. A market requires buyers and sellers, and there aren't any of either. Search services are offered for free, and users pay nothing for them.
Search is just a way to draw traffic for ads. The same is true of (non-paywalled) news and similar content. The fact is that search and news sites are in the same market -- providing surface for advertising, and drawing eyeballs to those ads. They're competitors... and also cooperators. Search benefits from including news in the res
Re: (Score:2)
Search isn't a market, though. A market requires buyers and sellers, and there aren't any of either. Search services are offered for free, and users pay nothing for them.
yikes, disagree. markets that are primarily ad revenue driven are not in the same market just because they're both primarily ad revenue driven. that's .. uh a fucked up view of markets unless you subscribe to a viewpoint that markets are not about what is produced, but rather how they are funded. People *buy* things - seemingly for free - b
Re: (Score:1)
I agree with the OP, this is a problem that robots.txt was meant to solve. While Google does take a small portion of bandwidth to crawl the website, you get visibility in return. There is no payment for the "content" as it is freely available for anyone to read. This is completely contradictory to the internet and news publications have survived for many years with RSS feeds and search engines. Aaron Swartz would be rolling over in his grave if he saw this, as he helped write the RSS spec (1.0 or 2.0, I don
Re: (Score:2)
If they're forced to pay to link to something you can bet they'll quit doing it. Otherwise they just let their web crawlers loose. I'd argue that Google would be far better at search if they didn't try to decide what I should or should not see and instead just try to give me content that best matches my searches. That's what they used to do and why they became the company they did. Then they changed to become less useful to the point where I don't have a problem using DuckDuckGo, not because their search en
Re: (Score:1)
DuckDuckGo literally uses the Bing Search API, so you're using Bing, if you are referring to results. If we were talking about tracking then you'd have a case. While Google has degraded over the years, Bing is not better, even still. You might as well set up Whoogle and just use Google without tracking. Then it wont conveniently learn your search patterns or location and give you biased results. By the way, it's not Google's algorithm that has caused the internet to go to shit, it's SEO optimization, AI gen
Re: (Score:2)
The original promise of search engines like Google is that if you let Google index, people will search for pages and that will give you traffic. It's a win-win and they are happy with that part. What they don't agree with is Google having a "Google News" homepage where they post an image and enough of the summary such that there no traffic is sent. This mode is parasitic.
There isn't a robots.txt option to accept one and not the other. Google says that they will delist the entire websites, which isn't what t
Sounds like a protectionist law... (Score:1, Troll)
meant to fleece a rich American company. Typical. I hope Google does cut them off. Would be a win win for everyone honestly. Now if we can get Google to cut off USA and we'd be free of them!
Tech Bros sure pick their targets (Score:1)
Facebook is pulling the same kind of thing in Canada. These tech giants pick countries with relatively small economies and try to bully them. Canada has stood strong against Meta. I hope New Zealand does the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Honest question: Google's literally driving them traffic by linking to them. Why should Google have to pay them?
Re: (Score:1)
You'd think so wouldn't you! Well, maybe unless you took a few minutes think about why the websites do have an issue with it. It's because they're actually *stopping traffic* because actual user behavior analysis shows that by showing summaries and photos from linked-to articles, it actually *prevents* a majority of people from clicking through. Once people read a summary and see a picture, they figure they've "got the idea" and remain engaged on the Meta/Google property, depriving the linked-to website pot
Negotiating Tactic (Score:3)
This is just Google negotiating on a final price. We've been through this before with Google. Its M.O. is to threaten deindexing, then accept a counteroffer. Google will cave, and New Zealand will get its money.
Third option (Score:2)
Third option:t Google could link to the news sites without ripping off their content (except for the headline).
Eg: unless it has an agreement with the news site, Google (and Facebook, and others) would be allowed to use the headline and link to the article.
How are y'all seeing more than the headline? (Score:2)
When I go to news.google.com, I see article headlines, and about every fourth article has a thumbnail of a photo.
Re: (Score:2)
Do a google search about something topical. Click on the "news" tab. Google has a picture and at least one sentence from the deep-linked article for *every* result.
Re: (Score:1)
That's literally all it does. [1]https://news.google.com/home [google.com]
Look at Google News, it's a short description and a title. Google has never shown the entire website or article for any site they index.
AI is different, but I don't think we're talking about AI here. That's an easy fix though. You use ChatGPT 4o-mini to rewrite your article into a summary and display that to Google instead of the full article, so that people will click through for more details.
I guarentee though, if they ban news, people will
[1] https://news.google.com/home
shittle (Score:1)
google's been a shithole forever. capitalism's free market bullshit is proven to all be lies by the fact that nothing has replaced google yet.
Google Tag Manager and YouTube Therefore Useless (Score:1)
Wouldn't it be fun if NZ media at this point say "So remind us again why we should use Google Tag Manager and YouTube if you're not linking us, mate."
If the whole of NZ media is delinked from Google, you can bet your last kiwifruit that alternatives will pop up locally - as well as driving the NZ public from Google to Duckduckgo, Playeur and all the rest. Good thing IMHO, and the local IT industry would be cracking open a few celebratory beersies. The Kiwis have a lot to say about colonial attitudes at the
Centre-right? Yeah, right. (Score:3)
*This* National government ain't centre-right. They're almost right-wing enough for the US.
Ok (Score:1)
Ok
Lies, all lies from Google (or: Yeah ok, "Eric") (Score:1)
Google dimwit Caroline Rainsford said:
> "Specifically, we'd be forced to stop linking to news content on Google Search, Google News, or Discover surfaces in New Zealand and discontinue our current commercial agreements and ecosystem support with New Zealand news publishers"
No, dimwit, you'd be "forc[ed] to pay for articles [created by New Zealand news publishers] displayed on [your platform] ". You call yourself a "director"!?!
Re: (Score:2)
They are unwilling to pay and thus a law requiring them to pay would force them to stop.
What she said was true... from a certain point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
So true. When I started 7am News back in the 1990s, I built a pretty big online business out of aggregating news headlines and links that were then made available to any other site via a Java news-ticker applet. With over 200,000 websites running the news ticker this service directed a lot of traffic to the news sites that were linked. Virtually every news publisher appreciated the extra traffic and it was only [1]Nando News that objected and demanded to be paid [cnet.com] for the links to its content.
Eventually th
[1] https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/nando-net-updates-web-strategy/
Re: (Score:1)
Google doesn't aggregate headlines and links. It also aggregates content of the stories and pictures from the stories. I'm curious what the sites you aggregated back then would have said about that, particularly given the advertising economics of today which are significantly different. Websites are no longer just "curious little sidehustles" for news organizations like they were in the 90s.
And I worked in the online advertising world in the 90s, writing ad servers and campaign reporting systems. Shit is ve
Re: (Score:2)
> It also aggregates content of the stories and pictures from the stories.
The "content" is a few sentences, and the pictures are a thumbnail.
It's just enough to know if you want to click to go to the hosting website.
I subscribe and pay for a digital subscription to [1]Economist.com [economist.com]. For everything else, if it isn't listed on news.google.com, I won't see it.
[1] https://www.economist.com/
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if Google was republishing the content of news sites without permission they could apply for relief under copyright laws which exist to prevent such exploitation. The reality is that they're not infringing copyright -- the tiny amount of information used is simply "fair use" that allows them to create an index that then serves to drive traffic to those sites.
It's really not much different to how it was in the 1990s... however...
Once Google starts using AI to create its own news stories by scraping th
Re: (Score:1)
Facebook is trying this crap in Canada, eh. no problem tho bro, Canadians just don't use Facebook much anymore. most of my facebook friends have branched out and or migrated to other platforms. besides facebook is getting more spammy with each passing day, some groups are ok but the ads are all manipulative and unethical
I call it Meta[stasize] now (Score:2)
> besides facebook is getting more spammy with each passing day, some groups are ok but the ads are all manipulative and unethical
That's why I call it "Meta[stasize]" now.