IcyShark

Being forced to pay to host a link is just not how the internet should or does work.

For example, this (https://www.axios.com/2023/06/01/meta-california-pull-news-threat) article talks about and links to Google and Meta, so it should have to pay them with this logic.

Meta threatens to pull news from its apps in California

History suggests that it's not an empty threat.

Axios
Jun 1, 2023 at 3:53pmWeb
Show threadBart Veldhuizen šŸš€Jun 1, 2023
@IcyShark I'll DM you my bitcoin address so you can pay for the link in that toot šŸ˜
Show threadYves L. Jardin-NoamJun 1, 2023

@IcyShark
"Hey, I read this great book! I'd tell you about it, but I'm a little skint this week and can't afford the royalty."

Terrifying, but I'm also sure there's a cyberpunk story there.
@Gargron

Show threadErik Szewczyk Jun 1, 2023

@IcyShark What am I missing here?

Everything I've read, including the article you linked, says this is about hosting content - not hosting links to content.

If they are hosting the content, that they didnt create, and profiting from it...then the content author/owner should be the one to profit/control. Big tech's approach to stealing content to keep you within their walled garden needs to be reined in.

Show threadIcySharkJun 1, 2023

@eriksz is it really just about re-hosted content? If so, it is much more reasonable than I understood it to be.

I see that in the Meta space, but Google just links to news outlets.

Show threadErik Szewczyk Jun 1, 2023

@IcyShark that's my understanding, yes

Otherwise, as you pointed out, you'd pretty much break the internet if you couldn't link to things...

https://www.reuters.com/technology/meta-threatens-yank-news-content-california-over-payments-bill-2023-05-31/

Meta threatens to yank news content from California over payments bill

Facebook parent Meta Platforms <a href="https://www.reuters.com/companies/META.O" target="_blank">(META.O)</a> said on Wednesday it would remove news content in its home state of California if the state government passed legislation forcing tech companies to pay publishers.

Reuters
Show threadErik Szewczyk Jun 1, 2023
@IcyShark From Australia and their version of this legislation:
https://www.reuters.com/technology/australia-says-law-making-facebook-google-pay-news-has-worked-2022-12-02/
Australia says law making Facebook and Google pay for news has worked

An Australian law giving the government power to make internet giants Facebook owner Meta Platforms <a href="https://www.reuters.com/companies/META.O/"target="_blank">(META.O)</a> and Alphabet Inc's <a href="https://www.reuters.com/companies/GOOGL.O/"target="_blank">(GOOGL.O)</a> Google negotiate content supply deals with media outlets has largely worked, a government report said.

Reuters
Show threadenthraxxxJun 1, 2023
@IcyShark There are news in Facebook!?!
Well that's a first!
Show threadDownes šŸJun 1, 2023

@IcyShark Right.

News media should also have to pay the politicians, accident victims, and owners of dogs from funny dog stories. Why should they be able to publish details of people's lives for free?

Show threadOrangestar Jun 1, 2023
@IcyShark Context for this?
Show threadIcySharkJun 1, 2023
@orangestar sorry, context beyond the article?
Show threadOrangestar Jun 2, 2023
@IcyShark Oh, was the link what you were referring to with regards to "paying to host links"? I think the article is talking more about news posts that are like, entire threads being reposted onto Facebook and Instagram (which news sites do because it increases engagement even though it decreases click throughput.)
Show threadIcySharkJun 2, 2023
@orangestar that actually makes a lot more sense, but it still seems wrong for a platform to have to pay me because I post something on it.
Show threadOlavJun 2, 2023

@IcyShark

Publishers that don't want their websites showing up in Google searches can already add a noindex to their metadata (or robots.txt for us amateurs) Presumably Meta could honor that too. Add a nofollow to go nuclear.

Where I draw the line is the current trend to provide "answers" instead of just links, pushing publishers further down and off the first page or two. This is antithetical to responsible search.

Show threadIcySharkJun 2, 2023
@olavf I think robots / noondex needs to be respected by tools when they are learning too.
Show threadOlavJun 2, 2023
@IcyShark
At a minimum. A discussion should be had about opt-in and what websites gain (or lose) by doing so.
Show threadAdrianJun 2, 2023

@IcyShark

We have the same idiotic idea in europa now thanks to the disastrous EU copyright reform with #Uploadfilter and #Linktax .

EU and german digital policy is a 100 % shit show with zero regard for user rights or what should be reasonable regulation.

Best thing that could happen is that most EU regulation in the last 20 years or so be deleted for it achieved nothing of any value for the cizizens of europe.

Show threadDFunkJun 2, 2023

@IcyShark @Gargron Maybe not? Neither Google nor Meta created any content here. Why pay them. The link serves as (more than?) adequate compensation Iā€™d think.

They have no stake in the position IMO

Show threadIcySharkJun 2, 2023

@DFunk @Gargron

That is true, but the are sending traffic. Isn't that traffic payment?

I envision Google and Meta prioritizing traffic to the favorite partners once they have to pay them. So, the poor little guy has no chance.

Show threadpriyankasinghJun 3, 2023
@IcyShark @Gargron would be interesting to watch how this moves ā€” likely to define the spaces to be and come, especially as we go deeper into the rabbit hole that is AI&more. Spaces driven by + rooted in a spirit of Trust & Belief & Kindness & Compassion ā€” links in chain conjoined towards reimagining a brave new world safer and more wonderful for children, + filled with variety & intensity for life and the living ā€” are likely to survive and thrive. Intrigued to keep following all that unfolds āœØ