Hacker News Reader

Comment by TulliusCicero | Hacker News Reader

Regulatory capture implies Google and Facebook were in favor of this and made it happen, which I doubt is true.

They are in favor of this. Maybe it's worse for them than in the current legal situation. But when the law comes into effect they are better off than any of their smaller competitors.

Do you have any statements or signaling you can link to from either of these companies to suggest they are in favor of this law? I know Google, for example, has fought strongly against similar link tax and other laws related to Google News in the past. There is also a statement from them referenced in this article: https://www.politico.eu/article/plan-to-make-google-pay-for-...

> The Commission’s proposal “would hurt anyone who writes, reads or shares the news — including the many European startups working with the news sector to build sustainable business models online,” Google said in a statement.

> Do you have any statements or signaling you can link to from either of these companies to suggest they are in favor of this law?

No, but I have to correct myself. I don't assume they are actively "in favor" but that they will passively benefit in a post-law time.

I think it may be true that they may suffer the law better than their competitors. But I think if it was likely that they would benefit absolutely, they'd be in favor of the law, or at least ambivalent, rather than strongly opposed. Don't you?

I personally believe (without any evidence) that they are ambivalent, maybe slightly opposed. However, they needed to oppose in public, otherwise, this would have been a PR disaster:

Publishers: "You steal our content and are unwilling to pay, so we need a law!"

Google: "You're right, please do the law, because it would harm our competitors!"

They could easily couch the statement in such a way that they would appear blameless, if they really wanted to make a positive statement. E.g. "We recognize the critical contribution of publishing companies to our society and want to do our part to ensure the continued existence of a strong publishing industry."

But then why did they not pay voluntarily when publishing companies asked for this prior to lobbying for this law?

Same reason I don't pay extra money to the treasury even though I think my tax rates should be raised.

They are probably against the link tax, but in favour of the content filtering.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com