Hacker News Reader

Comment by IAmEveryone | Hacker News Reader

> How will this effect google or facebook at all?

Google and Facebook show titles and quotes of linked articles. This legislation is specifically aimed at them. Noncommercial actors (bloggers etc) are supposed to be exempt.

> How do you NOT see this as bad?

It is extremely frustrating how people on HN apparently have no ability to acknowledge a valid argument for a position they oppose. Read the last two paragraphs of my post again. It clearly states, in rule-braking all-caps even, that I do not support this legislation.

> What good can come of it at all?

It will shift (as you note) money from those reprinting news to those producing original content. The former is cheap, commoditized, and in no danger. The latter is fundamental for a functioning democracy.

View on HN

>Noncommercial actors (bloggers etc) are supposed to be exempt.

Looking at EU's history of jurisdiction in these matters, this usually means almost no one is considered "noncommercial". You better believe this is going to hit small bloggers hard. C&D-happy lawyers are going to have a field day.

Facebook _users_ do. I highly doubt they are going to try and enforce this on google search results, that would be absurd, and if so it will just hurt the publishers for not getting hits. Where is it detailed that this is aimed at google/fb ?

Despite your condescending rebuttal I actually am disagreeing with your position. I don't think this is good for democracy in that having the cash to produce original content imposes no responsibility and this legislation would stifle third party analysis and criticism of their reporting. Making these arguments and then adding a "but yeah in general I'm not in favor" doesn't shield you from criticism.

Google is more than Search. This is targeted at Google News.

Democracy is in danger because publishers, large and small, lack the discipline and expertise to produce objective, quality reporting, and give a voice to people with something interesting to say.

Nobody forced them to chase clickbait or spend their days sourcing stories from Twitter and Tumblr. That's all on them.

And before you think that's an exaggeration, I'm talking about one of my (European) country's major national papers whose daily front page now consists of breathless American political drama, hashtags and gender politics. It's ridiculous, the children are running the show, the writing is atrocious, and their world view is about as sophisticated as a first year pol-sci major who's never held a real job.

Get those people to shut up and we'll be far better off. I look forward to their tears. If their content was worth it, they wouldn't be struggling.

Your entire position revolves around shackling google to serve the political interests of Brussels, to the point where Brussels wants to mandate a business model to the very people they claim to be helping. It's even weirder because Google is not a competitor to the newspapers, so going after them is nonsensical. It's not a compelling position and it brings to mind the old fable of the goose that lays the golden eggs.

> The latter is fundamental for a functioning democracy.

But if distributors have to pay to link to such content, then such content will not contribute to a functioning democracy because nobody will be able to discover this content.

And, it's funny you mention "functioning democracy" -- tell me how Brussels is part of a functioning democracy? The European Commission President and commissioners aren't elected are they? The Commission has the sole right to propose EU legislation -- which is binding on all member states.

So a Commission that isn't elected gets to force it's will on otherwise democratic countries?

How is that "functioning democracy?" A bit ironic that an undemocratic institution's actions are being defended as protecting something fundamental to a functioning democracy.

It's funny to me as an American living in Europe that many people criticize the US Electoral College system to elect the US president, yet see no problem with accepting the regime of the European Commission, despite not getting a vote on the the Commission President or Commissioners.

Actually the majority of people in my country have a problem with that. It's hard to solve when your government is filled with "business"men taking EU dotations though.

>> So a Commission that isn't elected gets to force it's will on otherwise democratic countries?

The Commission is staffed by elected politicians, one for every country of the EU. The Commission's President is elected by members of the European Parliament, themselves elected directly by the people of the EU member states in the European Elections, held every 4 years.

The Commission is a legislative body; it makes legislation, but legislation must be passed into law by voting in the European Parliament by MEPs.

A lot has been made into the eurosceptic press about the "non-democratic" nature of the EU. These news items overlook the difference between an elected politician and an official appointed by elected politicians. For example, US Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the US President and confirmed by the Senate and they are the final arbiters of fedral law, not to mention their appointment is lifelong.

You know, if the claim is "the current system does not lead to a functioning democracy", saying "but you don't have a functioning democracy" is not an opposing argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com