Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Australia Facebook Google

Microsoft Urges America to Force Google and Facebook to Pay for News (theregister.com) 81

Posted by EditorDavid from the news-from-nerds dept.
"Microsoft has said the USA should copy Australia's plan to force Google and Facebook to pay for links to news content," reports The Register, "and suggested that doing so will help improve social cohesion and strengthen democracy." But Google has fired back with a statement asserting that Microsoft's motives are impure. "Of course they'd be eager to impose an unworkable levy on a rival and increase their market share," wrote Kent Walker, Google's chief legal officer.

Microsoft's suggestion to the Biden administration came from company president Brad Smith arrived in a Thursday blog post that opens: "As the dust slowly settles on a horrifying assault on the Capitol, it's apparent that American democracy is in a fragile state." Smith attributed much of that fragility to disinformation spreading on social media and "the erosion of more traditional, independent and professional journalism... The internet eroded the news business as dotcoms like Craigslist disrupted advertising revenue, news aggregators lured away readers, and search engines and social media giants devoured both," Smith wrote...

Smith also points out that Microsoft's decision to support Australia's plan and pay local news outlets quickly saw Google CEO Sundar Pichai call Australian prime minister Scott Morrison, then asserts that Pichai only did so once the prospect of increased competition roused him to action.

"At the end of the day, what is wrong with compensating independent news organizations for the benefits the tech gatekeepers derive from this content?" Smith asks.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Urges America to Force Google and Facebook to Pay for News More

Microsoft Urges America to Force Google and Facebook to Pay for News

Comments Filter:

  • So Pay for Real News, Fake News for Free? (Score:3, Informative)

    by lcreech ( 1491 ) on Sunday February 14, 2021 @01:38PM (#61062932)

    How about Congress reinstate the Fairness Doctrine instead?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by feces1 ( 7726642 )
      It would be nice, but you know how these things go these days. One side becomes the Republicans' mouthpiece, and the other side becomes the Democrats' mouthpiece. But what difference does it make when it might as well be a uniparty or one of those Japanese shows where they throw a scorpion in a terrarium with a tarantula?

      Faux News vs. MSNBC is like Krusty vs. Bozo.

      We will never have objective reporting again. I think I'd draw the line at Cronkite. RIP, Cronkite.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Entrope ( 68843 )

      Is your argument more "both sides are good, so Fairness Doctrine"? Or more "I trust unelected bureaucrats to decide what is fair, so Fairness Doctrine"?

      There were good reasons for pitching it in the first place, and you haven't engaged with those at all.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by lcreech ( 1491 )

        Real News and Fake News operate on 2 different business models. If you only get Real New by paying for it, all your going to get is propaganda or news with nefarious intentions. The Fairness Doctrine at least insured that multiple sides of an issue were heard. Truth in the news, both right and left, but mostly in right wing media needs to be restored.

        • The doctrine ensured that whatever the administration wanted you to hear was heard. You think the Biden adminstration is going to bust MSNBC for being too liberal? Maybe the Trump administration would go after Fox for not having AOC on often enough?

          Nobody has ever been prosecuted for supporting the people running the government.

    • Who says the fake news would be free? If you think things are bad now, imagine if fringe news sites get paid real money to come up with the most outlandish viral clickbait "stories." It would be a disinformation arms race with the finish line well on on the other side of reality.

      • The REAL issue: Microsoft wants to damage Google. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Sunday February 14, 2021 @02:31PM (#61063090) Homepage
        Microsoft apparently wants to do damage to Google, so that Microsoft's bad management doesn't make Microsoft seem so intensely inferior.
        • c'mon ... Crotter Inc and Satellius would never do that they're the fairest of them all - - - if you have 2 % of the share then making the competition pay for the 98% they have probably seems like a good idea - - im not sure what the open, direct attack is though , maybe the tiktok thing got to their head and they think they're a branch of government now

      • Who says the fake news would be free? If you think things are bad now, imagine if fringe news sites get paid real money to come up with the most outlandish viral clickbait "stories."

        At least with a money paper trail you have a valid path to bullshit peddlers, and perhaps an ability to prosecute for peddling dangerous non-information.

        Today, we get to listen to "credible" news outlets talk about their "credible" anonymous sources, which IMHO is far worse than your scenario.

        It would be a disinformation arms race with the finish line well on on the other side of reality.

        We're already on that train to hell today. Up to you and every other citizen as to whether or not you want to derail it.

    • Probably because the fairness doctrine also requires you to host the loonies on your platform. No way.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      Deserves a "tiny insight" mod. Yes, it is hard to compete with free.

      And yet, the advertisers continue to pay the google that also supports the spammers. You'd think the advertisers should be more annoyed that their "valuable information" is sunk in the cesspool, eh?

      Unfortunately, the Fairness Doctrine was part of an economic model that is dead and gone. I think it was actually more important that the frequency-monopoly business model mandated news as a public service. If Walter Cronkite was the symbol of a

      • We could go with the BBC model, where countries have their taxpayer financed national news organization.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shanen ( 462549 )

          Okay, I'll grant that "government channel" should have been included on the list of three financial models, but I do have reservations. I don't think BBC (or PBS in the States or NHK in Japan) are "dominant" or "dominating" models, even within their geographies. Also, the BBC is subject to political pressures and people don't like the mandated fees. But I have to acknowledge that BBC is a major news source and viable, too. The politicians don't want to kill it, just make it kind of sick in favor of their ow

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shanen ( 462549 )

          But upon more reflection, now I have to think that any form of state-sanctioned news is going to be some from of propaganda. It's easy to see how that applies for countries like China, but even in the case of the BBC the independence and freedom of the BBC becomes part of the message. Maybe I'll change my mind again on third thought, but right now I don't see any way to separate the sanction of the nation from the nation's.... Objectives? Philosophies? Politics? Not sure what word should go there...

          (I might

    • How about Congress repeal DMCA, require the federal budget to spend 27% more on whatever-my-industry-is, or legalize weed instead?

  • and then $5-8/mo sub for all fox,cnn,wgn,bbc,msnbc,etc or no news at all. Also soon after that Disney news and espn news are added pushing that to $10-12/mo just like cable.

  • What is "news"? (Score:3)

    by ugen ( 93902 ) on Sunday February 14, 2021 @01:45PM (#61062954)

    Who decides what type of content is "news"? Or do we define as "news" only the "traditional media" where paid writers on someone's payroll churn out articles?

    • Who decides what type of content is "news"? Or do we define as "news" only the "traditional media" where paid writers on someone's payroll churn out articles?

      I'll go one further: Microsoft's position is: "doing X is good for these reasons", and Google's position is: "doing X is bad because Microsoft".

      Google isn't countering Microsoft's argument or their reasoning, they're just attacking the company as biased.

      It's misdirection. Maybe paying for news *would* be better, let's discuss that.

      But we should address the concerns and reasoning, not the character of the entity making the claims.

      • If you make Google pay for linking to your news site, they might stop linking to your news site. Google saves money and your news site goes bankrupt because nobody is visiting it (win win!).

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      There is a pretty simple fix here. In music there is compulsory licensing for a fixed fee. It would be simple to know how the content is being accessed as all these service go through a complicated set of redirects to insure that they have tracking information on the user.

      Content creators can add to a database indicating the e pact to be compensated. Bing, Google, Facebook, whoever, can choose to pay or not link to these paid sources. If they do they pay a clearing house which distributes the royalties.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dissy ( 172727 )

      Who decides what type of content is "news"?

      The AU law defines "news" as all websites with text.

    • A properly cultivated Twitter feed is more timely, more accurate, and less partisan than most news outlets.

  • I'd just be happy if... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Sunday February 14, 2021 @01:45PM (#61062958)
    Microsoft's Bing robot obeyed the instructions I put in robots.txt on my sites. I reported the problem to Microsoft a few years ago, and was told that it was a known bug. But it still seems not to be fixed, the Bing and BingPreview bots slurp up data from my site that I tell them not to touch. On the other hand, google's robot does obey my robots.txt instructions. Maybe Microsoft should take a step back and get their own house in order first, before they start going after google..

  • Paying for links? Really bad idea - an HTTP link is the basis for the web.

    Perhaps a way to pay to re-host or cache content. Facebook gets value by keeping users captive on their site and deprives revenue from the sites creating the original content. Perhaps Facebook should pay the owners for this content. If Facebook wants to say "There is an interesting story about xxx here" and provide the link - provided that when someone clicks on the link they are taken to the source web site, no harm, no fowl, no fee.

    • Paying for links? Really bad idea - an HTTP link is the basis for the web.

      Perhaps a way to pay to re-host or cache content. Facebook gets value by keeping users captive on their site and deprives revenue from the sites creating the original content. Perhaps Facebook should pay the owners for this content. If Facebook wants to say "There is an interesting story about xxx here" and provide the link - provided that when someone clicks on the link they are taken to the source web site, no harm, no fowl, no fee. If Facebook reproduces the text or images or when someone clicks on the link they end up still on Facebook, Facebook owes the original site something.

      Discuss

      Give Social Media, a license to do this. Based on annual revenue. The larger the org, the larger the license fee. If Social Media doesn't want to pay, fine. Get the hell out of the business of peddling "news" for profit.

      Enough of diluting the world down to "per click/per use" bullshit. I promise that greedy mentality, will infect entire industries and we will grow to hate it.

  • Evil sabotage (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Malifescent ( 7411208 ) on Sunday February 14, 2021 @01:54PM (#61062986)
    It's been previously suggested that Microsoft is backing Australia's crazy plan to charge for hyperlinks because it would upset Google's business model, not because they back the idea.

    They're basically just throwing sand into the machine.

    This also proves that Microsoft hasn't lost it's dirty tricks, even though it's putting up a friendly face towards open-source (as long as it doesn't threaten its business model).

  • Fox, MSNBC, CNN, Wapo, NYtimes, WSJ and the like are nothing but political operatives with a byline. Ratings and entertainment are more important than journalism.

  • Just search for anything in Bing and in Google Search and compare the results.

    In Spain, both of them (for the same news website link) show must exactly the same text.

  • Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Sunday February 14, 2021 @02:01PM (#61063004)
    I have a feeling that Google will just stop linking to the content at which point the clicks and ad impressions dry up even more. Very few of the news organizations have a regular viewer base that comes to their website. The companies could already stop Google from doing it with a few changes to robots.txt if they really wanted to, but they won't.

    • Unfortunately, the Australian bill is written such that "if you provide news clips at all, you have to negotiate (or get arbitrated) with Australian news companies.

      Thus Google's use of the nuclear option.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Luthair ( 847766 )
        Its actually a step further, Google has said they will turn off Google News if required to pay, Australia has responded that they would required to operate it and pay which is why Google has state they would exit the country if required to do so.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Loki P ( 1170771 )
          "Nice digital business you have there, better pay Rupert Murdoch 10% or something bad might happen." (To paraphrase the law's wording.)

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Loki P ( 1170771 )
            10% is what the news corps were asking for, despite only 1% of searches being news-related according to Google's analysis. How does that make sense? Fact-free lawmaking is fun!
    • Australia needs to say if you cutoff search, Australians also have the right to delete their personal search data and all metadata linked to that. Microsoft should push that line. Russia and China also has a policy 'And you store that data on our citizens in our country'. So obvious. The cost is not just 'news'. It is knowing when to deliver targeted ads to qualified buyers at the right time of day. Newspaper ads used to be rivers of gold. Now in Australia Google+affiliates has 95% odd of market share, and

  • Enormous pigs squealing, biting and jostling for the best spot at the trough.

  • Why should Google pay the news media conglomerate for sending them readers? It should be the other way around. And why just Google? Does Bing pay for sending them readers? I highly doubt it.

  • Simple (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    "At the end of the day, what is wrong with compensating independent news organizations for the benefits the tech gatekeepers derive from this content?" Smith asks.

    What's wrong is that no one is asking for it.
    What you're asking for is "what's wrong with paying every website on the internet for linking to them? Especially the ones that aren't news websites?"

    We'll I'm OK with this so long as you really will stand by your words and not be a hypocrite about it all. I stand to make millions of dollars by posting links to my own websites in your comment sections!

    But what the real problem with this is because we all know exactly what will happen.
    Here's what you will do an

  • Websites want traffic.
    Search engines send traffic to websites.
    Hence, websites PAY SEARCH ENGINES to be better featured in results.

    What has changed that now websites want to be paid to be linked to by Google? Don't websites WANT the traffic? I said out loud "What the fuck?" when I heard what Australia was doing because it doesn't make sense to me.

    For as long as I've been on the Internet it's been the other way around; websites go through hell and high water to get themselves prominently featured in search re

    • From what I gather, the issue is that Google shows just enough of the news story (beyond just the headline) in the search results that readers don't feel a need to click the link to read further. Newspapers think Google is getting all the benefit from their reporting (ad revenue from the search results) without driving users to the site where the newspaper could make ad revenue or entice subscriptions.

    • Re:I don't get it. Isn't it the other way around? (Score:5, Informative)

      by dwywit ( 1109409 ) on Sunday February 14, 2021 @05:35PM (#61063684)

      The situation is more like this:

      Google doesn't just put up a hyperlinked URL, the put up a headline (hyperlinked) and a sentence or two of content - the so-called "snippet".

      That snippet is enough for a significant number of consumers, and they *don't* click the hyperlink.

      In those cases, Google gets ad revenue, Newscorp et al *don't* get ad revenue. This is what they want to change.

      Google has already agreed to pay for this, but there's more.

      The legislation forces Google to display the snippets, doesn't allow them to stop putting up links. I can't see how this can be done, and will likely face a challenge in court.

      It also forces them to make the search/index algorithm - incredibly valuable IP - available to Newscorp et al, AND provide prior notice of changes/tweaks to the algorithm to those companies. Obviously, those companies want to be able to game the system to put their stuff at the top of searches - that's likely to put some SEO "experts" out of a job. Being forced to reveal commercial secrets for the benefit of another company is also likely to be challenged in court.

      So, Newscorp and others want the links, and they want Google to be forced to provide the links. Google won't be able to simply stop providing links, hence their threat to pack up everything and leave altogether. I can understand their position, and it's not just Australia - we seem to be a test case. If it happens here, it provides precedent for such a move in markets *much* larger than Australia.

      In related news, a browser extension called "byerupert" blocks access to NewsCorp sites, if you happen to accidentally or unknowingly click a link.

  • Hahahahaha. Comedic gold from Microsoft. Gotta love their strategery. I havenâ(TM)t seen tattling like this since I graduated from the playground rivalries in junior high.

  • Today, Microsoft is irrelevant in search and advertising. "Tie all these lead weights on everyone who makes money in those industries" works for them.

    Ten years from now, Google and Facebook paying ludicrous referral fees to the "have our cake and eat it" news sites who profit from the advertising on their malware sites - Microsoft, who have gained enough market share to actually make measurable money from link referral, also burdened by the same requirements pleads "We need freedom".

  • that's the worrisome part of it. The mans an idiot and dangerous.

  • It was only 2 days ago [slashdot.org]. I feel like editors aren't even scanning the headlines before posting. I guess we get what we pay for ...

  • Most Americans alive today were born in a society that was peacefully controlled by information gatekeepers. That's what major media organizations actually do. They broadly disseminate information that is compatible with the ruling class's wishes and rarely allow anything else. That's why for the last 4.5 years we saw a drumbeat of Russia Russia Russia!! from most of them when China is an order of magnitude more dangerous than Russia except on the nuclear front.

    A lot of middle age and older people are hungr

  • If a site wishes to charge google for linking to their content, google should charge that site for indexing it and sending traffic their way.

  • Really? Doesn't anyone remember Spain? (Score:4, Informative)

    by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Sunday February 14, 2021 @04:17PM (#61063404) Homepage

    When Spain did this, google responded, Bésame culo.

    Google just stopped doing it and apparently it hurt.

    https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com]

    https://www.zdnet.com/article/... [zdnet.com]

    • What Google is proposing in Australia is far worse. Mind you I suspect Google won't follow through and instead just do a Spain.

  • Google links are the only reason some news organization survives. Would they even get half the visitors they currently get without those links? Maybe they should be paying google.

  • When EditorDavid stops duping it. [slashdot.org]

    I'll be damned if I'm going to pay twice.

  • Microsoft has other major revenue sources and ad revenue from Bing is just a drop in the bucket for them. So what do they care if they have to pay a portion of that money? On the other side, it's still a major revenue for Google and Facebook so they would lose out a lot more in such a deal. Might help even the playing field for them in the search engine space.
  • If google revenue from my eyeballs is used to pay for news, I am even less likely to pay for news or suffer averts on the news sites. if google pays, eliminate the paywalls.
  • Is this how Australia became a world tech leader?
  • Seriously, if MS believes this, than why is MS not paying?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra

Close