Where are you at on the "Australia Model" of making Google pay publishers?
I find it hard to get much sympathy together for FB or Google, but I'm basically in agreement with Benedict Evans argument (laid out here: https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1362162752547086337 ) that the law is very strange and if you follow what it is arguing, the newspapers should be paying FB/Google instead of the other way around.
I think Evans is basically right and a lot of the law's justification is nonsensical. That being said, I think it was at its heart antitrust attempt to eke out money for local industry, and that the actual link mechanism -- which makes little sense -- was just a postfacto way of making it all 'work'. A more interesting argument to me is whether the publishers deserve money at all, or whether it's worth attempting to preserve local news publishing in its current form in a digital environment. Or, what the alternatives to that might look like.
I am thoroughly enjoying my subscription to "The Terminal"
Where are you at on the "Australia Model" of making Google pay publishers?
I find it hard to get much sympathy together for FB or Google, but I'm basically in agreement with Benedict Evans argument (laid out here: https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1362162752547086337 ) that the law is very strange and if you follow what it is arguing, the newspapers should be paying FB/Google instead of the other way around.
I think Evans is basically right and a lot of the law's justification is nonsensical. That being said, I think it was at its heart antitrust attempt to eke out money for local industry, and that the actual link mechanism -- which makes little sense -- was just a postfacto way of making it all 'work'. A more interesting argument to me is whether the publishers deserve money at all, or whether it's worth attempting to preserve local news publishing in its current form in a digital environment. Or, what the alternatives to that might look like.