Current Affairs
-
Unless the law is saying that literally just hosting links to content means the platform hosting those links (like said Google Search) has to pay the content owners, in which case bollocks
-
Minnesänger wrote:It’s worth noting that even if you don’t get an AMP result, it could still be AMP via a Signed Exchange. I know Apple and Mozilla were kicking off about this a while back. (A citation: https://9to5google.com/2019/04/18/apple-mozilla-google-amp-signed-exchanges/) It’s also possible that an ad blocker / other Firefox extension contains an AMP removal function, I know there’s multiple AMP removers for Firefox. Like many, I’m baffled Gurt has never encountered an AMP page, but I don’t doubt him if he’s insistent - he’s one of the most tech savvy people here. That said, in the context of this discussion, the way Google serves news is a major issue and AMP is at the heart of that.
Aye well it's brand new information to me. It's only been mentioned in the last couple of pages, and I haven't seen being talked about in the articles I've read (and specifically searching for a mention is only showing a handful that reference it so far), so how am I supposed to know that it's "at the heart of the issue" hmm?
If it is essentially taking full content and some monetisation from the original publisher then yeah it's a problem. -
But....that's the entire thrust of the law isn't it? it's saying that there are platforms which are making money out of other people's content without properly compensating those owners, that that is wrong, and so the law will redress that
-
Just reading up a bit on AMP, it's hard to find any articles about the Australian news media bargaining code that actually talk about it. Here's one with some stuff that the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) have said about it -
https://promarket.org/2020/09/12/contextualizing-the-dispute-between-australia-facebook-and-google/AMP is an industry standard, but the ACCC found that Google highly influenced its design. By requiring providers to host content on Google’s servers and determining the display standard, Google negatively impacts attribution (advertisers see the traffic going to Google and to the media pages, boosting Google); monetization (AMP restricts certain types of ads); access to user data (because the user stays in Google’s ecosystem, companies collect less personal data they use for ads); and retention and brand awareness (AMP encourages users to browse providers while media companies want to retain users in their environment).
The ACCC expressed similar concerns with regards to Facebook’s significantly less used Instant Articles for mobile users. It is also worth mentioning that Bing and DuckDuckGo also rely on a similar functionality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_Mobile_Pages#MonetizationSome publishers reported that AMP pages generate less advertising revenue per page than non-AMP pages.[53] The Wall Street Journal's Jack Marshall said:
"AMP pages rely heavily on standardized banner ad units, and don't allow publishers to sell highly-customized ad units, sponsorships or pop-up ads as they might on their own properties"[54]
Other publishers have reported better success with AMP monetization. The Washington Post has been able to generate approximately the same amount of revenue from AMP pages as from standard mobile pages, according to director of product Joey Marburger. CNN chief product officer Alex Wellen said AMP Pages "largely monetize at the same rate" as standard mobile pages.[55]
To improve advertising performance, the AMP Project launched the AMP Ads Initiative which includes support for more advertising formats and optimizations to improve ad load speed.[56][57]
Does seem like there are issues with it, though it's not clear to me exactly what the extent of it is. If it is causing big losses for publishers then I'm all for that being ameliorated in some way through regulation or compensation. -
Thinking more broadly for a moment, it’s not even just amp pages where Google are making money via a copy of others’ work, it’s the entirety of search.
Google’s search doesn’t check your site for text, Google indexes your site, stores it on its own servers, searches and delivers extracts from that to users.
Google’s entire search business is based on making copies of others’ work for their own use which they then monetise against. -
I think we should draw a line between the headlines/short summary in search results and things like the longer extracts or AMP pages which could be more clearly stated as being a 'copy' of someone else's work.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210209/02071146211/snippet-taxes-not-only-violate-berne-convention-also-betray-deepest-roots-newspaper-culture.shtml -
“Fair practise” doing some heavy lifting in that quote.
Is it fair practise to use the insights gained by these to monopolise the advertising market? -
Yeah Google's ad monopoly is a big issue, hopefully a good solution can be found.
-
The Amp was discussed last night between me and Yoss so it has been discussed for some time.
My take is that the next big update in May (see my previous post) will see Amp pages being less important.
Taking that out of the equation I think there are three things:
1. Google should not pay for links to sites. This would set a precedent that anyone who links to another site could gain monetary value from it.
2. Where Google use a certain amount of content above the simple link, summary and image to provide more value working the search ecosystem then the publisher should be paid a royalty.
3. Google ad practices should be split from the organic business unit with regulation over the organic search results. Any changes to priority of ads over organic search results should pass through regulation to ensure it does not negatively impact free access to the information people are searching for. This regulatory body should be funded through a global taxation system. If you fall out of this taxation system then you don’t get access to Google.
Something like that I think keeps alive the integrity of the original intent of search engines. Allows Google to flex where they want in professing valuable results, but ensures some control through regulation. -
Much tighter regulation around advertising would help too. Part of the reason that publishers are in trouble is because the ad business has collapsed for them as they can’t compete with the precisely-targeted advertising that companies like Facebook and Google can offer, and it’s not like the public are particularly keen on how much they’re tracked. The advertising market as it stands favours Google and Facebook at the expense of everyone else.
-
Oh definitely that’s an area to attack but I don’t have the brain power for that today.
And fuck Facebook. I mean really if there was one company I could get rid of today I think would be them. -
GurtTractor wrote:Minnesänger wrote:It’s worth noting that even if you don’t get an AMP result, it could still be AMP via a Signed Exchange. I know Apple and Mozilla were kicking off about this a while back. (A citation: https://9to5google.com/2019/04/18/apple-mozilla-google-amp-signed-exchanges/) It’s also possible that an ad blocker / other Firefox extension contains an AMP removal function, I know there’s multiple AMP removers for Firefox. Like many, I’m baffled Gurt has never encountered an AMP page, but I don’t doubt him if he’s insistent - he’s one of the most tech savvy people here. That said, in the context of this discussion, the way Google serves news is a major issue and AMP is at the heart of that.
Aye well it's brand new information to me. It's only been mentioned in the last couple of pages, and I haven't seen being talked about in the articles I've read (and specifically searching for a mention is only showing a handful that reference it so far), so how am I supposed to know that it's "at the heart of the issue" hmm?
If it is essentially taking full content and some monetisation from the original publisher then yeah it's a problem.
For clarity - when I say “it’s at the heart of the issue” I don’t mean that it’s something you had to know. As stated, I believe you completely when you say you haven’t come across it.
I just meant that, moving forward, given 99% won’t be using browsers that block AMP, and that news clicks from google searches generally go through that method, this makes it the heart. None of it was intended as a slight on you, Gurt. Sorry if it read as such. -
My annoyance wasn't aimed at you particularly, nae bother. There's sparse talk of AMP in the recent articles I've seen, and it's not entirely clear to me exactly how damaging it is to publishers though I'm sure it is problematic.
Apparently I'm in the ~4% that use Firefox, with Chrome and Safari holding 64% and 19% respectively. So I guess I'm some kind of freaky deviant. Good. -
What’s your view on the idea that aggregation platforms like Google and FB make money (without sharing that revenue) from others’ content? Is it ok, however shitty the content owners are?
-
I think we should draw a line between the headlines/short summary in search results and things like the longer extracts or AMP pages which could be more clearly stated as being a 'copy' of someone else's work.
Making money from the former is fine, the latter is iffy and should probably be sorted out in some way. -
There’s already a mechanism for licensing extracts/content from newspapers and magazines in the UK. It’s called NLA Media Access. Not enough people/organisations are aware of it, or realise they should be paying it.
There’s no reason that mechanism couldn’t be used to encompass the way Google, Facebook, etc republish/rehost content. It’s the international nature of the web that’s likely to complicate things, though. -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56185236
Asda says 5,000 jobs at risk in new business plan
That didn't take long did it now. Leveraged buyout of ASDA and now start making cuts. -
GAMESTOP SHARES AGAIN GO GO GO -
Impaled in the groin by a cock. Not quite how is like to go
.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-56224144 -
acemuzzy wrote:Impaled in the groin by a cock. Not quite how is like to go.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-56224144
Can't say I've any sympathy.
-
Strapping a shank to the bird can only have roused an ancestral dinosaurian memory. Good shit. -
This BBC report from (what’s left of) a school in Yemen is quite the thing.
https://twitter.com/GEsfandiari/status/1366333169776082947 -
So furlough scheme has been extended till september say Sky News. Does that imply that lockdown will be extended until then? If so, i cant see people complying with the lockdown rules during the summer. It will be unmanageable to enforce for the police.
-
Isn’t it just a way for businesses to become more stable. There’s still gonna be fallout from all this after the fact.
-
Yeah I would say it gives business a chance to get back on their feet.
Opening up doesn't equate to instant cash flow. I am sure the hope would be that by September the scheme is being barely used though.
-
But i thought they were expecting a record bounceback of the economy, the quoted 'V' shape as businesses reopen and people start going out again and spending money?
Anyway regardless its been a crap year for all. Having a half decent summer you can enjoy would be nice. Im saving most my annual leave for august hoepfully het 2 or 3 weeks of not thinking about work. -
That still takes time to filter through the business. Cash flow (as Liv mentions) is a killer for any business. Opening back up and then slowly building back up customers, but then instantly having to pay full salaries wouldn't work for a lot of businesses.
I would also guess that there is still going to be fallout from changes in behaviour. For example, we won't be going back to the office 5 days a week now. It's been agreed that work life balance will now change.
This will impact everything from the coffee van and M&S van that comes to deliver food and drinks, to local shops and pubs when we would go and grab lunch etc. I believe the high street is going to shrink again, just as it was pivoting into perhaps a more social, rather than retail, led experience.
This may differ by location, but certainly I would expect more people to now, at least in part, work from home. -
I dont disagree boris. Though you can see a yo-yo effect from a mile away. Lockdown ends, people go out in their masses (as weather improves). Infection rates go up, and we go back into lockdown. They really need to smash the vaccination programme out as fast as they can.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,713
- Games1,877
- Off topic836