GurtTractor wrote:And much of what you described can be done online, at a low low cost relative to operating in a building or several buildings.
That's not the issue around zero-click results. It's not that most won't be clicked, it's that literally zero won't be. That means no one except Google benefits from the work the publishers (not just news, but bloggers, info sites like AV forums, whatever) produce, but the publishers get nothing in return.
Not sure what you can find bizarre about a company that creates useful content for people getting paid by ads getting less and less revenue as Google takes more of its value without giving anything back?
Not anymore. They used to be, but as has been said many times, the are no longer a directory, they are now partially a publisher and a beneficiary (financially) of site owners IP.
The algorithm isn't that bad and Google is very open in what you have to do to compete. Regulation here isn't needed.
Yossarian wrote:Something’s just struck me:Even this isn’t as easy as you say. Our investigations work is all done offline. If you’re investigating Putin, you don’t keep everything on a computer connected to the internet.GurtTractor wrote:And much of what you described can be done online, at a low low cost relative to operating in a building or several buildings.
b0r1s wrote:So it has nothing to do with irrelevant results. The results are very relevant but Google are presenting more and more of the data. So no need to click. So the site gets no visit.
GurtTractor wrote:I'm not pro fucking google. Also I do think there's a problem, but not in the same way you and most of the big media do.
That link for the lyrics actually shows what you are talking about, the previous article didn't. In the case of those lyrics google is showing the results from Mixmatch apparently, if they aren't paying Mixmatch then they should, but perhaps they are? As for the rest of the results those are all just a page title and summary and should fall under fair use. My point stands.
Funkstain wrote:Again I'm still not sure about how this impacts the wider "free internet" thing. If I, as a small platform / blog / research agency / web resource etc, put in links to published articles, I'm not going to get charged for this am I? But if I, as a huge platform which hoovers up 50% (google) and 25% (FB) of total internet ad revenue, at least some portion of which comes because (esp. in case of FB) I have a news service, and the ability to link articles with full text or at least summary points of text within a news feed, and do everything I can to keep you on my platform and not send you away to publishers' / content owners' websites, should I not be expected to share some of that revenue you've helped me gain with your content? It's not about supporting Murdoch, it's not about defending FB, it's about understanding whether the argument above makes sense. Who can say it doesn't, and why? Irrelevant diatribes about the state of modern media, and alternative sources of revenue, and "adapt or die" broisms, will be ignored for being dumb
GurtTractor wrote:The state of modern media is not irrelevent, they're clearly trying to find ways to keep financially healthy/profitable with paywalls and this sort of thing. And as for adapting just look at how the music and film distribution industry has found ways to innovate around the technology of the internet. Old industry and media should try to innovate, there's plenty of opportunity to do so.
Diluted Dante wrote:Fuck the gig economy.
Yossarian wrote:Also, the more I think about the idea of tax to spend more money on news services, the worse an idea it sounds. The idea of giving the government of the day the power to decide which news services to fund and by how much is absolutely ripe for abuse.
Yossarian wrote:AMP pages are literally hosted by Google.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!