This article is a one sided look at how publishers benefit from Google without considering the other side, at all. This is not helpful for informed discussion.
If Google is 'helping' these publishers then the counterpoint is these publishers are also 'helping' Google by making the content at their cost in the first place. Without their content what will Google search? Wikipedia, blogs?
Without news content google search users will not get news context about their search queries so the search engine will lack a critical perspective and become lower quality, which will take billions of dollars of value off Google, lower its value to users and make room for other options.
Let's not pretend Google is not benefiting from news content. And since people clearly value news content producers can generate value outside of Google, and Google will need to pay to make money from that content or do without. Targeting a predatory model will make space for better models and ideas to emerge.
> If Google is 'helping' these publishers then the counterpoint is these publishers are also 'helping' Google by making the content at their cost in the first place. Without their content what will Google search? Wikipedia, one person blogs?
The whole rest of the internet, which among other things contains a sizable number of media outlets that are not subject to these protections?
Frankly, Google is better-equipped to walk away from news providers than the news providers are to walk away from google. Google has done this before, even.
You are, of course, absolutely right that there is room for another business model here. In fact, one might posit that there has been room for decades! Surely it's possible that there could be a business model whereby consumers get access to the news they value for a reasonable price, producers of news get paid fairly, and profit-extracting aggregators are kept to the slimmest of financial margins. Surely it would be better for consumers (who doesn't like supporting journalism, so critical to a free society?) and journalistic outlets (who obviously would love to be free of Google's iron yoke)!
It's curious that no good replacement has arisen when the opportunity and incentives are so clear! Perhaps in Spain, where Google News does not operate on domestic newspapers and has not for years? But I'm sure that's merely my failure to understand how Google sucked all the oxygen out of the room and prevented those incentivized to do so from creating something better. Can you help me understand what I've missed?
> Without their content what will Google search? Wikipedia, blogs?
I hope so. The internet was better when news was an afterthought.
> Without news content google search users will not get news context about their search queries so the search engine will lack a critical perspective and become lower quality,
News content is low quality content. It's toxic information pollution.
I wish google/youtube, facebook, reddit, etc would simply ban news company links. It would go a long way to increase quality content and lower toxicity.
If Google is 'helping' these publishers then the counterpoint is these publishers are also 'helping' Google by making the content at their cost in the first place. Without their content what will Google search? Wikipedia, blogs?
Without news content google search users will not get news context about their search queries so the search engine will lack a critical perspective and become lower quality, which will take billions of dollars of value off Google, lower its value to users and make room for other options.
Let's not pretend Google is not benefiting from news content. And since people clearly value news content producers can generate value outside of Google, and Google will need to pay to make money from that content or do without. Targeting a predatory model will make space for better models and ideas to emerge.