Google says it’s running the “time-limited” test because EU regulators and publishers “have asked for additional data about the effect of news content in Search.” The company says it will continue to show results from websites and news publishers located outside the EU, and it will resume showing results from EU news publishers once the test ends.
This may be just a small experiment, but it almost feels like a warning. By the end of the test, EU news publishers will see exactly how much traffic they’d be missing out on without Google.
Over the years, Google has fought fiercely against regulations that would force the company to compensate publishers for their content.
I mean, Google has essentially committing large-scale copyright infringement for a good decade (longer?) at this point. Ever since they started putting substantive information and answers directly...
I mean, Google has essentially committing large-scale copyright infringement for a good decade (longer?) at this point. Ever since they started putting substantive information and answers directly into the search results page, thus depriving the sources from which they scraped that information of any of the clicks and revenue that everyone so craves. Now with the proliferation of LLMs, that's only getting worse.
Google's shunning of EU publishers during this test will probably hurt EU publishers in the short term until the test is over. And yes, that might very well scare everybody into complying with Google's whims. But Google thinks that the internet is nothing without them... when actually the opposite is true. Google is nothing without the rest of the internet feeding them information.
Google doesn't produce anything of actual value. Perhaps Google Maps (especially Street View) have a good amount of content that Google actually directly invested in producing... and even that isn't so much "original content" as it is simply original documentation of things in the world built by others. But I think every other part of their business is in providing a vehicle for one to find and ingest information and content produced by others. They keep getting greedier and greedier with presenting content directly to users while obfuscating where that content actually came from and preventing people from supporting those who actually produced that content using their own resources... and eventually those sources of information are going to wither, and Google will have no one left to steal from.
You make some valid points, but I think you're off base in a couple areas: Discovery is a feature, and a desirable product. The pre-google internet was basically not an internet yet. It was many...
You make some valid points, but I think you're off base in a couple areas:
Google doesn't produce anything of actual value.
Discovery is a feature, and a desirable product. The pre-google internet was basically not an internet yet. It was many internets, and maybe you were savvy enough to navigate some of them.
Not as accessible as today's is, by a long shot. Sure, it's dropped from peak quality, but fast, easy, relevant discovery was revolutionary as it formed and finally peaked with Google.
Perhaps Google Maps (especially Street View) have a good amount of content that Google actually directly invested in producing... and even that isn't so much "original content" as it is simply original documentation of things in the world built by others.
This minimizes how massive a product maps and Google geo in general is, not just from a discovery point of view, but from a wayfinding one. Incredibly sophisticated pathfinding, often integrating tens of millions of real-time data points.
When was the last time your answer to 'when will I get there' was 'i don't know and there's simply no way to be sure.'
That reality basically no longer exists because of stuff products like maps enable with what they have under the hood.
Those capabilities -- 'to increase usability of other things' -- are feature, product and 'content' even if they are not the same as writing a blog post or putting a brick and mortar shop up.
It feels like saying Adobe doesn't produce anything of value because ultimately it's the artists who do all the work.
You also make good points, but I think you missed my point, or I wasn't clear enough. I'm not saying that discovery has no value, but discovery has no value if there's nothing of value to...
You also make good points, but I think you missed my point, or I wasn't clear enough. I'm not saying that discovery has no value, but discovery has no value if there's nothing of value to discover. Google is a provider of discovery services, not a producer of information to discover, so by taking steps to cut the producers of information out of a user's experience, they are disincentivizing the production of that information in the first place, which results in a lack of information to discover, thus rendering Google's information discovery services valueless.
I think you also overstate Google's geo capabilities. Google Maps was a pretty revolutionary product in the beginning, but it's no longer remotely unique. OpenStreetMaps is just as capable of a database, and there are many routing engines for OSM data which are just as capable at pathfinding as Google. The key differences are that Google has the money to operate realtime traffic monitoring services which their routing engine can take into account to improve routing, and that Google's broad market presence keeps Maps in a dominant position simply because it's the default option that came equipped on a few billion of the smartphones in use today. Google Maps is no longer a superior product with superior technology. It skates by on being good enough that people aren't motivated to go through the trouble of trying something else. Hell, it wasn't until very recently that Google even allowed competing navigation apps to be accessed via Android Auto.
It feels like saying Adobe doesn't produce anything of value because ultimately it's the artists who do all the work.
It's funny because you sort of make my point here, seeing how Adobe has been up to similar abusive shenanigans towards those who actually give their product value. Adobe is nothing without the artists who use their tools to produce art, and Google is nothing without the authors who publish information for Google's users to discover. Both companies' hubris actually limits the value they can provide.
As an OSM contributor, I disagree on this point. While detail is filling in every day, it is not on the level of proprietary maps yet in many areas. I've recently taken to improving my hometown...
OpenStreetMaps is just as capable of a database [as Google Maps]...
As an OSM contributor, I disagree on this point. While detail is filling in every day, it is not on the level of proprietary maps yet in many areas. I've recently taken to improving my hometown with a 5-figure population. Before I started, it basically just marked roads, major public services like the airport, schools, hospital, and post office, and fewer than 20 private businesses that had added themselves.
You can't search for "gas stations in [town]" because they aren't mapped yet. You can't get "directions to P Sherman 42 Wallaby Way" because almost nothing has street addresses yet. OSM is slowly getting better, and hopefully it gets there one day, but in 2024, it is not a drop-in replacement for Google Maps for many users.
I did say capable of a database, not complete of a database. Google Maps' completeness at this point is thanks to their stronghold position in the market, not the other way around. Businesses must...
I did say capable of a database, not complete of a database. Google Maps' completeness at this point is thanks to their stronghold position in the market, not the other way around. Businesses must maintain their Google Maps presence or perish at the hands of monopoly. You're really just reinforcing my point further I think.
While it’s true that Google is often on the side of copyright infringement (YouTube was built on it), this isn’t true for news. Google hasn’t summarized news articles for many years. They post...
While it’s true that Google is often on the side of copyright infringement (YouTube was built on it), this isn’t true for news. Google hasn’t summarized news articles for many years. They post headlines, links, and pictures.
And isn’t linking to news articles what we do on Tildes? The web wouldn’t be what it is without links being free.
News organizations, desperate for more money, want to be paid when Google links to them, because Google has money. It’s understandable, but it’s bad precedent and we shouldn’t be rooting for what are essentially link taxes with extra steps.
Maybe a long shot if it actually turns out to be something positive in the long run, but I would welcome this. I think news and journalism have been ruined in its chase for optimizing for traffic...
Maybe a long shot if it actually turns out to be something positive in the long run, but I would welcome this. I think news and journalism have been ruined in its chase for optimizing for traffic from Google and social media. There entire existence has become dependant on another company. Hopefully this could force news organizations to look inward and focus on giving readers a good reason to visit their site and read their articles directly. Develop a direct trustworthy relationship with their readers, so they want to type in the URL themselves and from a click from somewhere else. But that is probably too much to hope for.
I think you failed to understand the direction of my argument. If google removes results from EU news sites, people who want those results can't get them from a search engine, but they can still...
I think you failed to understand the direction of my argument. If google removes results from EU news sites, people who want those results can't get them from a search engine, but they can still make use of reddit's built-in, notoriously bad search feature.
As always its all about money.
I mean, Google has essentially committing large-scale copyright infringement for a good decade (longer?) at this point. Ever since they started putting substantive information and answers directly into the search results page, thus depriving the sources from which they scraped that information of any of the clicks and revenue that everyone so craves. Now with the proliferation of LLMs, that's only getting worse.
Google's shunning of EU publishers during this test will probably hurt EU publishers in the short term until the test is over. And yes, that might very well scare everybody into complying with Google's whims. But Google thinks that the internet is nothing without them... when actually the opposite is true. Google is nothing without the rest of the internet feeding them information.
Google doesn't produce anything of actual value. Perhaps Google Maps (especially Street View) have a good amount of content that Google actually directly invested in producing... and even that isn't so much "original content" as it is simply original documentation of things in the world built by others. But I think every other part of their business is in providing a vehicle for one to find and ingest information and content produced by others. They keep getting greedier and greedier with presenting content directly to users while obfuscating where that content actually came from and preventing people from supporting those who actually produced that content using their own resources... and eventually those sources of information are going to wither, and Google will have no one left to steal from.
You gotta take care of your plug.
You make some valid points, but I think you're off base in a couple areas:
Discovery is a feature, and a desirable product. The pre-google internet was basically not an internet yet. It was many internets, and maybe you were savvy enough to navigate some of them.
Not as accessible as today's is, by a long shot. Sure, it's dropped from peak quality, but fast, easy, relevant discovery was revolutionary as it formed and finally peaked with Google.
This minimizes how massive a product maps and Google geo in general is, not just from a discovery point of view, but from a wayfinding one. Incredibly sophisticated pathfinding, often integrating tens of millions of real-time data points.
When was the last time your answer to 'when will I get there' was 'i don't know and there's simply no way to be sure.'
That reality basically no longer exists because of stuff products like maps enable with what they have under the hood.
Those capabilities -- 'to increase usability of other things' -- are feature, product and 'content' even if they are not the same as writing a blog post or putting a brick and mortar shop up.
It feels like saying Adobe doesn't produce anything of value because ultimately it's the artists who do all the work.
You also make good points, but I think you missed my point, or I wasn't clear enough. I'm not saying that discovery has no value, but discovery has no value if there's nothing of value to discover. Google is a provider of discovery services, not a producer of information to discover, so by taking steps to cut the producers of information out of a user's experience, they are disincentivizing the production of that information in the first place, which results in a lack of information to discover, thus rendering Google's information discovery services valueless.
I think you also overstate Google's geo capabilities. Google Maps was a pretty revolutionary product in the beginning, but it's no longer remotely unique. OpenStreetMaps is just as capable of a database, and there are many routing engines for OSM data which are just as capable at pathfinding as Google. The key differences are that Google has the money to operate realtime traffic monitoring services which their routing engine can take into account to improve routing, and that Google's broad market presence keeps Maps in a dominant position simply because it's the default option that came equipped on a few billion of the smartphones in use today. Google Maps is no longer a superior product with superior technology. It skates by on being good enough that people aren't motivated to go through the trouble of trying something else. Hell, it wasn't until very recently that Google even allowed competing navigation apps to be accessed via Android Auto.
It's funny because you sort of make my point here, seeing how Adobe has been up to similar abusive shenanigans towards those who actually give their product value. Adobe is nothing without the artists who use their tools to produce art, and Google is nothing without the authors who publish information for Google's users to discover. Both companies' hubris actually limits the value they can provide.
As an OSM contributor, I disagree on this point. While detail is filling in every day, it is not on the level of proprietary maps yet in many areas. I've recently taken to improving my hometown with a 5-figure population. Before I started, it basically just marked roads, major public services like the airport, schools, hospital, and post office, and fewer than 20 private businesses that had added themselves.
You can't search for "gas stations in [town]" because they aren't mapped yet. You can't get "directions to P Sherman 42 Wallaby Way" because almost nothing has street addresses yet. OSM is slowly getting better, and hopefully it gets there one day, but in 2024, it is not a drop-in replacement for Google Maps for many users.
I did say capable of a database, not complete of a database. Google Maps' completeness at this point is thanks to their stronghold position in the market, not the other way around. Businesses must maintain their Google Maps presence or perish at the hands of monopoly. You're really just reinforcing my point further I think.
While it’s true that Google is often on the side of copyright infringement (YouTube was built on it), this isn’t true for news. Google hasn’t summarized news articles for many years. They post headlines, links, and pictures.
And isn’t linking to news articles what we do on Tildes? The web wouldn’t be what it is without links being free.
News organizations, desperate for more money, want to be paid when Google links to them, because Google has money. It’s understandable, but it’s bad precedent and we shouldn’t be rooting for what are essentially link taxes with extra steps.
Maybe a long shot if it actually turns out to be something positive in the long run, but I would welcome this. I think news and journalism have been ruined in its chase for optimizing for traffic from Google and social media. There entire existence has become dependant on another company. Hopefully this could force news organizations to look inward and focus on giving readers a good reason to visit their site and read their articles directly. Develop a direct trustworthy relationship with their readers, so they want to type in the URL themselves and from a click from somewhere else. But that is probably too much to hope for.
Well, this would send more people to reddit search. I'm not sure if I'm sorry for them, they deserve it, or both...
Google already sign exclusive search deal with Reddit. Reddit now blocks any search engine crawler that is not Google
Kagi still gets reddit, but that's only coz they pay Google.
I think you failed to understand the direction of my argument. If google removes results from EU news sites, people who want those results can't get them from a search engine, but they can still make use of reddit's built-in, notoriously bad search feature.