Google Ordered To Put Clearer Links In AI Search, Let UK Publishers Opt Out (arstechnica.com) 22
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: UK regulators today ordered (PDF) Google to put clearer attributions and links to publishers' content in its AI-generated search features. The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) also said Google must give publishers a way to opt out of AI features in search. "In a world first, publishers will now have effective tools to prevent their content being used to power AI features in search, such as AI Overviews," the CMA said today. "This will put publishers, like news organizations, in a stronger position to negotiate content deals with Google. To boost consumer trust, Google is also now required to make sure that publisher content is properly attributed, using clear links, in AI-generated search results."
The CMA ruled that Google may not penalize publishers for opting out of AI, meaning that Google can't downrank opted-out publishers in general search results. The CMA said Google will have nine months to comply with all requirements but that the agency "expects important parts of the controls to become available to publishers well before that deadline. Google will also be required to submit and publish compliance reports, supported by key data and metrics, explaining changes it has made and how it has complied." [...] The CMA applied the rules to Google after determining that it has "strategic market status" in general search services, and has ongoing investigations into Apple and Microsoft. Google today said it will comply with the CMA decision. The News Media Association, a trade group in the UK, said that "the legally enforceable Conduct Requirements for Google Search published today are a significant step towards leveling the playing field and building a fair, transparent digital economy where premium content is properly respected and fairly compensated." The group called on the UK to implement "robust enforcement."
The CMA ruled that Google may not penalize publishers for opting out of AI, meaning that Google can't downrank opted-out publishers in general search results. The CMA said Google will have nine months to comply with all requirements but that the agency "expects important parts of the controls to become available to publishers well before that deadline. Google will also be required to submit and publish compliance reports, supported by key data and metrics, explaining changes it has made and how it has complied." [...] The CMA applied the rules to Google after determining that it has "strategic market status" in general search services, and has ongoing investigations into Apple and Microsoft. Google today said it will comply with the CMA decision. The News Media Association, a trade group in the UK, said that "the legally enforceable Conduct Requirements for Google Search published today are a significant step towards leveling the playing field and building a fair, transparent digital economy where premium content is properly respected and fairly compensated." The group called on the UK to implement "robust enforcement."
Good (Score:1)
Good.
Google should have been doing that anyway. They are plagiarizing the content for free; the least they could do is actually acknowledge where they got it from.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the value of newsrooms and have a lot of sympathy for their sudden lack of viability in today's world, but I'm not convinced that is the answer.
Leaving the value judgement aside. Even a failing business has a right to its own intellectual property in a capitalist society. Letting the vultures loose on any business that is too small to succeed is a pain straight towards corporate hegemony. Especially when media and journalism are what gets vacuumed up. I suspect Google, Meta, etc were targeting the news media intentionally an not simply as a consequence of desperately seeking more clicks.
Other than government taxation, monetary transactions in a capitalist society are supposed to be voluntary,
For some definition of "voluntary" and for "capitalist". I hav
Re: (Score:1)
If your business fails you stop doing it and move on to something else.
And if there's a demand for your business elsewhere then you set up over there instead.
Should there also be a law saying that McDonalds or Pizza Hut can't set up shop within four miles of any independent restaurant?
Re: (Score:2)
If your business fails you stop doing it and move on to something else.
And your owners and creditors get to raid any intellectual property you have. It's not free for Google to take.
I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
They can easily stop Google from "taking" any of their content that they wish.
robots.txt is a thing, and Google honours it.
If it's not listed in robots.txt, it's not password protected, and it's available on the public Internet (notice the word public there) then why shouldn't Google have the same right to read their webpage as you or I do.
"Oh, but they're telling others what it says."
Yeah, and I just told my wife/friend/dog that my favourite hockey team won their game. I saw that information on a news web
Re: (Score:2)
why shouldn't Google have the same right to read their webpage as you or I do
Tip: That's what they're asking for. That google be held to the same rules as everybody else. Those rules include not being allowed to copy and republish their content without their permission.
Are you an idiot, or do you just play one on the internet?
Yeah, right... (Score:4, Insightful)
Google will use the data anyway, just skip attribution and pretend it's not stolen content. Oh, sorry, is it your content we stole? Well, see you in court then.
It's naive to expect Google to save them (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I've not used Google as my main search engine for at least 5 years by this point; the last time I recall Google actually having useful, authoritative results was probably around 2016 or so
Brave does this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Google does some kind of "Footnote" approach, where you can click the small number or indicator and then see the source. And maybe the UK publishers want a longer attribution at that place than just a reference.
noindex (Score:1)
It works! You can opt out at any time.
Re: (Score:2)
"Your honor, see, the victim isn't actually a victim at all, because if they'd just stayed home (an option available to anybody) they would not have been attacked!"
The part I don't understand is why? Why do you shamelessly shill for big corps abusing people's rights? It seems unlikely they'd actually pay you to do it.
robots.txt (Score:4, Informative)
WTF??? Did the entire world collectively forget at some point that robots.txt is a thing? So far as I know, google respects it. If they don't, then THAT is definitely a problem. But otherwise, this entire hullabaloo is solved problem and much ado about nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily for them the copyright holder gets to choose what uses to give permission for, and what not to give permission for.
On paper. I guess we'll find out from this situation if UK businesses operating in the UK actually have the rights the UK (and the US) promises them, or if some UK court will step in and invent a loophole.