Some users won’t see EU news articles in Search.
  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.worldEnglish
    16·
    3 days ago

    Removing outside sources of information? There are a few countries that already do this, and they’re not great places to live.

  • Mandy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    19·
    4 days ago

    The EU already doesn’t like what google and the like are doing, maybe this gives them proper ammo

  • Routhinator@startrek.websiteEnglish
    401·
    4 days ago

    Users are testing the impact of not using Google.

    Spoiler: non-LLM enshittified search engines return reliable results and usually are not censored.

  • jaxiiruff@lemmy.zipEnglish
    1523·
    5 days ago

    Big tech needs to be stopped yesterday. This literally has china great firewall energy and I hate it.

    • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.comEnglish
      6·
      3 days ago

      This is the opposite of what you think it is.

      Google says it’s running the “time-limited” test because EU regulators and publishers “have asked for additional data about the effect of news content in Search.” The company says it will continue to show results from websites and news publishers located outside the EU, and it will resume showing results from EU news publishers once the test ends.

      This is the EU testing what it would be like if they ditched Google, not Google testing what it would be like without the EU. The test also doesn’t impact the US.

    • woelkchen@lemmy.worldEnglish
      438·
      5 days ago

      Big tech needs to be stopped yesterday. This literally has china great firewall energy and I hate it.

      This is one of the rare occasions I’m siding with Google. The news outlets are claiming that they should be paid money for those result snippets. It’s not because I’m caring for Google so much but because that stance hurts small search engines.

      • cbarrick@lemmy.worldEnglish
        364·
        5 days ago

        EU: You have to pay to show our news.

        Google: Ok. We won’t show your news.

        EU: Pikachu face

        • woelkchen@lemmy.worldEnglish
          32·
          5 days ago

          That’s what basically happened in Germany like 10, 15 years ago when the first publisher had that idea. Its news stories would still show up in search results but only the headline, not that text snippet and no thumbnail image. These results were less attractive to users, so traffic from Google to those web sites crashed down by like 80, 90 percent.

          In the end the publishers gave Google a free license to reproduce text snippets and thumbnails. The tightened copyright law provision wasn’t repealed. Small search engines without leverage still (AFAIK to this day) have to pay.

          So Google pays nothing, publishers earn nothing, upstart search engines can’t afford the fees, and so Google leaves even more in power because of a law not even they wanted.

        • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.comEnglish
          4·
          3 days ago

          But, is this bad? Google makes a crap-ton of revenue compared to publishers who are now struggling with AI content competition. They need revenue to pay journalists.

          Hard to define the good guys on this one.

          Note: It’s also a misrepresentation. The EU asked Google to do this.

          • cbarrick@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            3 days ago

            The EU gave Google an option: pay or take down the content. The latter option was a bluff, and Google called them on it.

            I don’t think this will hurt Google at all.

            But it will certainly drive less traffic to these news sites if they are banned from Google. And that will hurt the news sites.

            • Zangoose@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              3 days ago

              The problem is that it won’t stop people from using Google. Most people probably wouldn’t even notice aside from having to spend more time searching for local things, which incidentally will give Google more ad money.

              The average person probably doesn’t know that search engines other than Google or Bing (or maybe Yahoo if they’re old enough) even exist. As much as it worries me that most of Firefox’s revenue comes from having Google as the default search engine, regulating that practice might actually give other search engines a chance to be seen.

      • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.mlEnglish
        2·
        3 days ago

        Laws need to be different for monopolies and large player. Stop the rich from using the small as human shield for their grotesqie practice.

      • Lennny@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        5 days ago

        Not wanting to appear on Google is how we’re going to get EVEN more dailymail type shit.

      • blind3rdeye@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        3 days ago

        Unless I’ve misunderstood the law, it doesn’t hurt small engines, because small search engines don’t have to pay.

          • blind3rdeye@lemm.eeEnglish
            2·
            3 days ago

            That does sound pretty bad. I guess it really highlights the power of a monopoly. Businesses may rely on each other, but if one relies more, then they pay all costs due to necessity while the other pays nothing because they can easily outlast the pain.

            • atrielienz@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              2 days ago

              It could be different. But different doesn’t necessarily mean better unless we design it to be better. It’s so hard as a little guy to get a foothold in search without one of the big 2.

    • General_Effort@lemmy.worldEnglish
      101·
      4 days ago

      My brother in Lemmy, this is what stopping Big Tech looks like.

      Europe made laws that say that Google and others need to pay if they want to link to EU publishers. Well, maybe the price they are asking is not worth it.

      You’re right about the firewall energy, but that’s simply how these laws work. The point of copyright, as well as age verification and other such laws, is to control who may access certain information.

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      232·
      5 days ago

      I mean, they’ve done this when places charge them money to index the news articles there.

      It hardly seems reasonable to both mandate that they index a given piece of news media and that they pay a fee to do so.

    • x00z@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      5 days ago

      Europe asked Google to do this so they can monitor what kind of influence Google has.

    • Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      43·
      5 days ago

      A US news echo chamber at the whims of whatever they think will appease trump is going to be horrifying…

  • qyron@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    18·
    4 days ago

    Somebody help get my ideas straight on this one, please.

    To my knowledge, Bing and Google search engine are the default options available out there, to the point other search services relay service from those, give or take a few tweaks (DuckDuckGo, Startpage, etc).

    Now lets remove those from the picture and what is left?

    I read a post yesterday announcing Ecosia amd Qwant were joining efforts to build a fully european search engine (hopefully, yes, but I’m not holding my breath on it). Maybe that is an option. But what else?

  • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.mlEnglish
    4·
    3 days ago

    How does the EU not have its own link engine? EU being pathethic not just IP nulling all of silicon valley and their garbage products from the continent.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1·
      3 days ago

      Eh, there are some search engines in the EU, the notable one I know about is MetaGer, but apparently they had to stop supporting their free, ad-supported service due to Yahoo ending its contract with them. But it’s based in Germany and still exists today.

      That said, it’s a meta search engine and I don’t think it has its own index, but who knows, maybe if enough people sign up, they’ll work on their own engine some day.