> Anyone using snippets of journalistic online content must first get a license from the publisher.
Re-publishing a portion of a published work is not a "link". A link is only a reference (address) where something (e.g. a published work) may be found, which not part of the work itself. Displaying a portion of work might be an allowed "fair use"? (I only know US copyright law; the EU may have very different laws about when it is "fair" to bypass copyr8ight and use part of a work)
However, it is important to remember that (at least in US-like jurisdiction) that the amount of work included in a snippet is one of several features used when judging if a use is "fair". Another important question is if the use affects the market for the original work. An academic paper that quotes snippets from an article is probably fair (nobody would read the paper as a substitute for reading the original article), while an aggregator using the same snippets may not be a fair use if people are reading the aggregator to read the article instead of continuing to the original publisher. In general, each case probably requires judge to rule if a specific use is "fair".
> Because readers need to know what a link leads to before clicking, sites almost always include a snippet of the linked-to content as part of a link.
This is deliberately attempting to conflate re-publication with a hyperlink. Link previews are not needed, are not used for the vast majority of links on the web. Claiming that previews are "almost always" included is patently a lie.
Should it be necessary, this kind of feature is better implemented in the user agent. I'm fairly certain I saw link prefetch+preview extensions for Firefox ~10 years ago.
> Small publishers disadvantaged: Aggregators create a level playing field for independent publishers with less brand recognition to reach audiences.
Did Google or FB write this doublespeak? Allowing aggregators to republish copyright protected works benefits the big players by allowing them to steal existing markets.