Google ran an experiment to understand the value of European news content. The data shows people visited Google only slightly less often when this content was removed, and Google’s ad revenue did not significantly change.

  • whereisk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    16 days ago

    Is this where Google gets to pretend that their news aggregation is about news or profit and not about running social experiments to see what tracks public interest or being in a position to shape public opinion by surfacing the news it chooses but also without paying for content?

  • Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    Even so, there is a societal interest in objective news being available to the public, which means that search engines should be required to carry such content, profitable or not. All the more so due to Google’s monopolistic grip on the search engine market.

    • raef@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      This was more a stunt because France is demanding Google pay to link to news sites. It’s the opposite of whether search engines should be required to list them

      • Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        If that’s what the French want, then it’s Google’s obligation to comply and simply adjust advertising rates as needed.

        • joe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          16 days ago

          Google is pointing out that the news sites need google more than google needs the news sites.

          This sort of thing happens every once in a while; some country’s news organizations think that google should have to pay them for the privilege of helping people find their sites. Google responds by blacklisting news sites from that country. The news sites suffer more than google does, and they reverse the decision.

          • Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            16 days ago

            That’s a symptom of Google holding a monopoly over search results.

            Real reporting will always cost more to produce than AI-generated propaganda, and if the former has a paywall and the latter doesn’t, people will inevitably end up reading the news that takes the least effort to produce, to the detriment of actual news reporting.

            Requiring Google to both carry such content and pay for it at least ensures that it has an even footing with websites seeking to push propaganda instead.

            • raef@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              16 days ago

              I think it’s problematic to require an organization to do something and then charge for it. It’s one thing if they do something of their own volition and then are required to pay