>Imagine you run a business, doesn’t matter what kind. Prospects look up your service on, say, Google, where Google in many cases now shows them enough of an extract of your content so that they may never even have to click through to your page to learn about what you do. So you can never analyze, ab test, tag, sign up, retarget or monetize these otherwise-visitors who are no longer clicking through.
So kinda like the yellow pages in the phone book? Where I would go to the section on lock smiths and read the ads, and call the ones I want to talk to? You're wanting to basically force prospective clients to call each locksmith even if they don't want to. The company that allows ease of access gets the business. You're free to add a robots.txt blocking google today.
>its primarily concerned with the intermediaries reproducing the copyrighted news content or summaries/extracts on their own sites,
This is factually incorrect. The bill does not say "pay to summarize" it's pay to link. The notion that the news orgs are not getting any benefit out of this is insane to me. They're paying staff to manage their Facebook and Instagram accounts. Everything I know about businesses, and especially suffering businesses is that they don't want to burn a bunch of human hours posting stories that are apparently costing them money.
>neighbours evacuated or on alert are posting questions in private neighbourhood groups, on everything from food access, water use to garbage collection, and when answers are behind news articles, Meta is stopping other neighbours from posting links to those articles in response.
Sounds like we should stop depending on our news orgs who paywall public cood content anyways. That information should be on Government run websites.
>This “interference” is purposeful by Meta as a calculated protest against a bill that is not yet in effect and isn’t about that use case.
And I for one welcome it, our news orgs have a dying model and instead of adapting they're lobbing the government to bully the tech companies as they have money. Why have 400 meetings to discuss this bill and not change the text at all?
So kinda like the yellow pages in the phone book? Where I would go to the section on lock smiths and read the ads, and call the ones I want to talk to? You're wanting to basically force prospective clients to call each locksmith even if they don't want to. The company that allows ease of access gets the business. You're free to add a robots.txt blocking google today.
>its primarily concerned with the intermediaries reproducing the copyrighted news content or summaries/extracts on their own sites,
This is factually incorrect. The bill does not say "pay to summarize" it's pay to link. The notion that the news orgs are not getting any benefit out of this is insane to me. They're paying staff to manage their Facebook and Instagram accounts. Everything I know about businesses, and especially suffering businesses is that they don't want to burn a bunch of human hours posting stories that are apparently costing them money.
>neighbours evacuated or on alert are posting questions in private neighbourhood groups, on everything from food access, water use to garbage collection, and when answers are behind news articles, Meta is stopping other neighbours from posting links to those articles in response.
Sounds like we should stop depending on our news orgs who paywall public cood content anyways. That information should be on Government run websites.
>This “interference” is purposeful by Meta as a calculated protest against a bill that is not yet in effect and isn’t about that use case.
And I for one welcome it, our news orgs have a dying model and instead of adapting they're lobbing the government to bully the tech companies as they have money. Why have 400 meetings to discuss this bill and not change the text at all?