Google Caved and will pay $74 Million to News

[ExFlyer]

19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

Great, that's good to hear. It's the first step towards thinking about what to do about it.

Actually it's because of the lack of transparency - the means to do anything about your entire point - is just about always the biggest elephant in the room when discussing the point of your point.  I highly doubt Blackbird is concerned about the lack of transparency given all the render unto Caesar blather he subscribes to.
 

And what on Earth does this have to do with making the government transparent? If you're one of these folks who think the PMO and the CBC editorial room are one and the same thing why wouldn't you want to have public observers in there as well?

Forget all the behind the scenes Machiavellian coercion of Google, just tax them like they were you or me into Canada's general revenues.

And in the meantime provide funding for a public broadcaster with public money. The collapse of the private model for journalism is what it is and the need for what they provided is still as big as ever.

Man, can you ever tap dance LOL

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Man, can you ever tap dance LOL

And you sure trip over yourself trying to keep up.

So how about the article I just wasted my time posting for dingle-nuts benefit. Is it lost on you too?

Edited December 5, 2023 by eyeball

[ExFlyer]

13 hours ago, eyeball said:

...

So how about the article I just wasted my time posting for dingle-nuts benefit. Is it lost on you too?

Yup, wasted your time posting for dingle nuts, me and everyone else LOL

Like I have said, numerous times now, just go away

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Like I have said, numerous times now, just go away.

Stop ignoring the elephant then. You don't think it gets a little tiresome witnessing that?

You haven't seen anything yet.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Stop ignoring the elephant then. You don't think it gets a little tiresome witnessing that?

You haven't seen anything yet.

Look tootsie, the elephant is you.  The one trick pony is you.

I have been trying to ignore you but your only trick keeps on and on and on.

Say goodbye LOL

[BeaverFever]

On 12/5/2023 at 11:41 AM, CdnFox said:

The news outlets make money when google links their stories. The people go to that website and the news outlet derives a benefit.

Sounds like you're being a bit of a hypocrite.  If google displays any of their content and makes money they bad must pay, if google directs people to the media outlet and the media outlet makes money (they all sell ads on their pages) then it should be free. 

 

Yeah but that’s not how it works.  The entire story renders on Google Amp so you read the news outlet’s content on the google platform not on the news outlet’s website 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Yeah but that’s not how it works.  

But whenever i do a websearch on google's site and a story pops up from their paper i'm directed to their newspaper.  Do they owe google for that?

[Aristides]

In 2022 Google made 13.9 USD billion profit on over 65 billion USD in revenues. That's a 22% profit margin. A lot of companies would kill for that.  I don't get why people are so upset at them paying a measly 100 million CAD (73 million USD) for content posted on their sites.

[BeaverFever]

Just now, CdnFox said:

But whenever i do a websearch on google's site and a story pops up from their paper i'm directed to their newspaper.  Do they owe google for that?

Most people do not get their news by doing web searches first of all. They browse news headlines that Google, Facebook et al scrape from the internet. 
 

Second of all as I mentioned Google does make an exceptional amount of money from ads on the news outlets site no matter how the reader ended up there. Thisnis because Google has a near monopoly on online advertising.   Your very own conservative newspaper National Post  describes it as follows:

 

Matt Stoller: Google is stealing from Canadian newspapers and advertisers

And it's killing our news providers
 

…

Google inflated its profits, redirecting advertising revenues from newspapers to itself.

It’s a complex story, but at the heart of it is what looks like theft. Most of us think of Google as a search engine, and it is. But Google has many other lines of business. This particular suit involves display ads on the open web, which are what you find on the Wall Street Journal or ESPN. These ads are bought and sold in an unusual manner. If a user goes to the site of a newspaper, unbeknownst to the consumer, a highly complex financial market kicks into gear. Newspapers no longer sell most of their advertising directly but have become integrated into a giant set of global auctions. In these auctions, advertisers bid for the right to place their ad not into a specific newspaper, but in front of a specific user. Money then changes hands, from the buyer of the ad to the publisher, with a set of middlemen each taking a cut. This happens in a split second, billions of times a day. At this point, online advertising is far bigger than the stock market in terms of the number of transactions.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Online advertising is bigger than the stock market in terms of the number of transactions

Well, guess who runs the software to manage this financial market? Google. And guess who takes the lion’s share of the revenue? Google.

There’s a decade-plus-long backstory to this scheme. In the mid-2000s, Google transitioned from its role as a search engine into the main intermediary of all online advertising. In 2005, Google had a lot of advertisers that were buying its search ads. It also started to let smaller websites put strips of ads up and gave them a share of the revenue. Ad industry insiders at the time realized that advertising was transitioning from a Mad Men-style set of local, regional and national markets to an automated set of marketplaces.

Google’s strategy wasn’t to remain a search engine, but to expand and control all online advertising. But the firm had a problem. It couldn’t break into the market for the space on big established publisher sites, because that market was already controlled by another near-monopolist, DoubleClick. DoubleClick had 60 per cent market share in the software used by publishers to manage how they sell ads on their site, or what’s known as an ad server. So, Google’s then-CEO, Eric Schmidt, did what every good monopolist does when in a lax policy regime: he bought his rival — DoubleClick — in 2007.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Google then had all the elements needed to organize the market. It controlled a lot of advertiser money because it had millions of advertisers who entrusted it with their campaigns through its search engine and ad network; it controlled most publisher ad space through its DoubleClick purchase; and it owned an exchange, AdX, which came with DoubleClick. It also had search data for most users, as well as DoubleClick’s vault of data. Over the next 10 years, Google tied all of these products together in a way meant to exclude rivals. And since ad pricing was opaque, Google could and did manipulate auctions to ensure that rivals delivered worse prices for publishers and ad buyers who used them.

Today, Google controls the brokerages on both sides, the exchange in the middle, the data, and the pricing. It manages where ad money flows, and to whom. According to its own internal analysis, Google takes 35 cents out of every dollar spent on advertising, an extraordinarily large sum across tens of billions of dollars of online advertising.….

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/google-is-stealing-from-canadian-newspapers-and-advertisers/wcm/6a66f2c0-39bb-4451-b02b-60185d7e42ca/amp/

 

 

[CdnFox]

Just now, BeaverFever said:

Most people do not get their news by doing web searches first of all. They browse news headlines that Google, Facebook et al scrape from the internet.

And? For the ones who do or the ones who look up stories - shouldn't the papers be compensated?

MOST people who frequent forums use google to search for articles.  At some point they want to share something  or they want to research something and the search pulls up news articles that they will go read at that paper's site. The number of people being driven by google to those news papers is NOT zero.

Quote

Second of all as I mentioned Google does make an exceptional amount of money from ads on the news outlets site no matter how the reader ended up there. Thisnis because Google has a near monopoly on online advertising.   Your very own conservative newspaper National Post  describes it as follows:

I love that I own the national post now

Sure - google sells ads and the newspaper chooses to buy them. But they don't need to, that's a choice. And it's a bit of a different subject although i can see how you're relating them.  But - a paper buying ads from google because it's easier than going and finding their own ad dollars is not a contract to drive business to the website. Google itself does do that though, so why wouldn't the paper who derrives a benefit have to pay for that?

 

 

[BeaverFever]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And? For the ones who do or the ones who look up stories - shouldn't the papers be compensated?

MOST people who frequent forums use google to search for articles.  At some point they want to share something  or they want to research something and the search pulls up news articles that they will go read at that paper's site. The number of people being driven by google to those news papers is NOT zero.

I love that I own the national post now

Sure - google sells ads and the newspaper chooses to buy them. But they don't need to, that's a choice. And it's a bit of a different subject although i can see how you're relating them.  But - a paper buying ads from google because it's easier than going and finding their own ad dollars is not a contract to drive business to the website. Google itself does do that though, so why wouldn't the paper who derrives a benefit have to pay for that?

 

 

Huh?  That makes no sense. Newspapers don’t buy ads, they sell them. Unfortunately google is a monopoly that controls online advertising and all the infrastructure so they’re like a middleman broker who keeps the advertisers money for themselves and leaves the newspapers with very little.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Huh?  That makes no sense. Newspapers don’t buy ads, they sell them. Unfortunately google is a monopoly that controls online advertising and all the infrastructure so they’re like a middleman broker who keeps the advertisers money for themselves and leaves the newspapers with very little.

Any monopoly can be broken and papers have always found their own advertisers. There's nothing stopping them from selling their own adspace. If they choose to use google as a service that's their option but it's not the only option.

And regadless - thy make money at it.

Obviously they want people to visit their site directly and benefit from them doing so,   so again - if they get a benefit from a google search should htey not have to pay?  You're dancing around the question but it's a straight forward question.

[eyeball]

On 12/6/2023 at 8:27 PM, CdnFox said:

Any monopoly can be broken

Rarely if ever without government intervention. If anything governments are often instrumental at propping them up and visa versa.

If there are examples of market based solutions to breaking up a monopoly I'd like to see them.

New technologies might qualify perhaps - like steam replacing the 'monopoly' horses had on transportation. But it's a bit of a stretch.

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Rarely if ever without government intervention. If anything governments are often instrumental at propping them up and visa versa.

 

It's actually extremely common.  Western union held the rights to all communications and telegraph lines for a long time. Where are they now.  Sears had utterly cornered the mail order business, their name was practically synonomous with it the same way amazon is today.  And where are they. Microsoft owned the computer industry - most people have an iphone in their pocket and ipads are still the most popular tablets, and macbooks sell a heck of  a lot. 

I could go on for quite some time and most of those happened without gov't help.  The anti trust laws that are in place are more than enough in the vast majority of cases.

Quote

If there are examples of market based solutions to breaking up a monopoly I'd like to see them.

The market as it is rarely lets monopolies form, and certainly not for long. If something is successful someone else will duplicate it. Something very popular today will be replaced by something else in the near future. Taxis litearlly had monopolies in their service areas for a long time - till uber decided they shoudln't.  No gov't help necessary - in fact it happened despite gov't protections of the taxi services.

You're letting your inner communist get the better of you   (nyuck nyuck nyuck!)

 

 

[eyeball]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's actually extremely common...

...Sears had utterly cornered the mail order business, their name was practically synonomous with it the same way amazon is today.

? Hmmmm.

Like Amazon, Sears became the target of anti-monopolists who complained the company abused its purchasing power to undercut and muscle out of business thousands of smaller, independent general merchandise retailers. Concerned about the rise of chain stores, Congress even passed a law—the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936—which criminalized retailers like Sears that were getting quantity discounts from manufacturers.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregpetro/2023/09/27/amazons-antitrust-case-evokes-the-fate-of-sears-rise-of-walmart/amp/

It appears Sears was hoisted on a petard it lit itself.

So I wonder whatever happened to that good old fashioned strict capitalism and it's we-don't-need-no-steenkin'- government- intervention shtick?

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

? Hmmmm.

Like Amazon, Sears became the target of anti-monopolists who complained the company abused its purchasing power to undercut and muscle out of business thousands of smaller, independent general merchandise retailers. Concerned about the rise of chain stores, Congress even passed a law—the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936—which criminalized retailers like Sears that were getting quantity discounts from manufacturers.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregpetro/2023/09/27/amazons-antitrust-case-evokes-the-fate-of-sears-rise-of-walmart/amp/

It appears Sears was hoisted on a petard it lit itself.

So I wonder whatever happened to that good old fashioned strict capitalism and it's we-don't-need-no-steenkin'- government- intervention shtick?

Fair enough- i wasn't aware of that so point to you (hey - it had to happen sometime )

However again that seems to be a more broad law that helps keep the market in general free and fair rather than breaking up sears per se. They still held the market on mail order, and now amazon fills that role.