Hacker News Reader

Comment by pydry | Hacker News Reader

Facebook is not the open web. Facebook is a walled garden.

The issue is considered to be an attack on open web, because for the first time there will be a national law forcing someone to pay for posting a link. The ability to freely post links is the basis of open web.

The difference is the value of the link. As someone who does seo, a link certainly can be ascribed a price.

Facebook still isn’t even close or near being part of the open web. It’s a convenience aggregator if anything, and that’s where the difference lies. And Facebook benefits freely from something it did not produce.

Should Hacker News have to pay money to link to SMH? Answering "Yes" is an attack on the fundamentals of the internet.

> And Facebook benefits freely from something it did not produce.

Arguably the news publications get at least as much value out of news links being shared on Facebook as Facebook gets, if not more.

Look I get it - we all hate Facebook. Facebook and Google and Amazon should face more regulation, but this is not it. Lets actually aknowledge that the government is forcing websites to pay for linking to a site. Links that, in Facebook's case, the publishers voluntarily submit and post!

Good point you’re making. There seems to be a symbiotic relationship really. News producers do get the short end of the stick though when it comes down to it.

I also think this particular government intervention is not helpful. But something akin to a shared revenue system might be an option?

Most articles are paywalled so the publishers get subscription and ad money.

>Should Hacker News have to pay money to link to SMH?

Why ask this? Nobody's asking them to and nobody will.

News sites are certainly welcome to tell Google not to index their sites and I'm sure Facebook would be happy to set up a similar system. The fact they don't shows that they know they receive value from these links.

If you have mates in government it's easy to setup such money grab. I wonder what they are going to do next. For example coffee makers will demand a share of ones salary? (After drinking coffee you are more productive and make more money, it's only right to share with coffee producers % of your earnings, right? Then you will say you'll stop buying coffee and government will call you being anti Australian and will force you to drink coffee. It is that bad.

The law is forcing two walled gardens to pay - because they are walled gardens. That's exactly the opposite.

If they never reached a deal users would seek news not on Facebook or google but elsewhere - perhaps on the open web.

no they are forcing all websites to pay. There's just a delay between the 2 they've targeted currently and the millions yet to be targeted.

> forcing two walled gardens to pay - because they are walled gardens

How is Google search a walled garden? You search, see a link to a news story, click on it, leave Google.

(Disclosure: I work at Google, speaking only for myself)

Because you increasingly don't leave Google:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescommunicationscouncil/202...

https://sparktoro.com/blog/less-than-half-of-google-searches...

When users stay on the Google and Facebook platforms then news media companies are for practical purposes forced to have a presence on both, but that also means Google and Facebook will capture most of the advertising revenue and the news media companies producing the actual content will see less. Hence the regulation.

Google has already done deals with various news media companies in Australia. Facebook is in the process of doing the same. The Australian government got what they wanted.

Every website on the open web is a walled garden. Attacking Facebook for doing something every other website does is an attack on the open web.

Your argument is tantamount to saying the US isn't a free country because you have to take your shoes off when you visit your friend's house. And then saying your friend should be required to pay you for taking your shoes off.

That's totally true. What I was trying to say was that Facebook's interests became aligned with the open web's interests and their "triumph" (i.e. stopping this law) would've also benefitted the open web.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com