• Victor Villas
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The analogy makes no sense lol you’re not a content aggregator and people don’t eat directions.

    News websites produce content that generates value for social networks. If that value is worth paying for having that content (the link tax) is a matter of accounting only. Facebook seems to believe it’s not for now, that’s all there is to it.

    • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I said I have no problem with a tax for content aggregators. If they provide a summary of the content so that users don’t have to visit your site. That’s fair.

      But wanting to be paid also for just a hyperlink? That’s idiotic. That is a service they are receiving (for free). Why do I say that? Because when social media stop linking to content at all, the media producers start complaining about reduced traffic. So the links clearly provide value to the media companies.

      So they simply took it too far. “we want to be paid for the service we provide” (the content itself) is fair. “We want to be paid for a service we actively want and are receiving for free” (the hyperlinking to their site on social media) is not.