Hacker News Reader

Comment by embedding-shape | Hacker News Reader

Because "business" isn't just "business" in Denmark and many other countries. Journalism for example, isn't just about the financial bottom-line, journalism has a societal role, and also the move could be seen as trying to avoid paying publishers under EU rules designed to support a free press.

I think a lot of friction between businesses and countries in Europe can be better understood if we better understood the difference in how countries treat things like "business" and other stuff. I understand in the US it's different, money basically rules, you can fire people whenever you want and so on, but in many places in the world, people have a different relationship to businesses, it's not just about money there.

Particularly when it comes to journalism. From reading news from Denmark about it, politicians been repeatedly argued that Google's framing reduces journalism to a revenue input, ignoring its democratic function.

View on HN

If journalism really weren't just about the financial bottom line in Denmark, then why are they quibbling over what Google will pay them at all? It sounds like they'll be happy with just Google listing and driving traffic to their content for free.

You're missing the point. I speak American so I can translate. He's basically saying journalism is a matter of National Security. It needs to be done correctly to a high level at all costs, much like education. Google (Silicon Valley) is messing with it.

Hmm, they're not 'messing with' journalism or national security. They just don't care enough to index denmark journalism. I'm also not sure how denmark can strongarm google et. al. into doing anything at all. Is this incorrect, is there some sort of path forward here for denmark to get what they want?

In practice, that's a form of censorship since it inhibits the ability of people in Denmark to discover domestic news articles through search.

But Google is willing to host their content in search, right?

They're just not willing to pay since there's no revenue benefit to search hosting it. It seems like Danish media doesn't like this and has chosen to withhold their content, which is their right of course, but it seems strange to contort that into a claim that Google is doing censorship.

> In practice, that's a form of censorship since it inhibits the ability of people in Denmark to discover domestic news articles through search.

No it doesn't. It it inhibits the ability of people in Denmark to discover domestic news articles through GOOGLE search. A subtle but hugely distinct difference, making your point quite moot.

BS. If the lead provider in the market systematically excludes you from search results it's absolutely going to make it harder for people to discover your content. Kindly note I said 'a form of censorship', miss me with the binary reductionism.

Google owes Denmark nothing. The entitlement of this whole idea is quite embarrassing.

That attitude "we're gonna make a ton of money and leave you with fascism" is why US tech is not going to last in the EU in the long run. It's unsustainable, like a parasite that kills its host. Basically they're out the moment the EU doesn't need US weapons. Thank Trump for starting this push for independence.

"We need journalism to be done 'correctly' as a matter of national security" sounds like something that the CCP would say.

The facts are clear: Regulate the companies or lose your democracy. FB's impact on democracy has been clear for a long time. This is just the latest - https://www.brusselstimes.com/1916422/us-tech-giants-allying...

So you say we must choose between losing freedom of the press and losing democracy? I say you lose democracy if you lose freedom of the press.

There's already boundaries on what the press can and cannot print (libel, etc). Gotta get out of Constitutional Law 101

Right. You must be referring to the libel laws that have specific exemptions for politically powerful or otherwise publicly prominent individuals specifically to avoid intrusion into freedom of the press. And you think that helps your point?

This isn't true.

If regulations can legitimately be advocated for, they can be advocated against as well.

Facebook wouldn’t have any vested interest in the far left, the far right, the far up or the far down in the EU if the EU wasn’t giving them reasons to take an interest. If the parties in power were really worried that Facebook was going to be the difference-maker, they could undercut the opposition and remove the issue entirely by rolling back their needless regulations and keeping their own desire to overstep their authority and dictate terms to foreign enterprises in check.

> If regulations can legitimately be advocated for, they can be advocated against as well.

That's not logically necessary.

Wait, so supporting opposition parties is somehow losing democracy? And you want the government to prevent them from doing that?

That’s missing the key detail that some opposition parties are anti-democratic, or funded by enemy states that would benefit from the downfall of the current democratic world order.

Please name the political parties that have cancelling elections as part of their platform.

Is election cancellation the only form of anti-democratic action? That would be quite naive to believe, wouldn’t it?

Actually, there’s quite a bit of reactionary political theory regarding the weaknesses of liberal democracy and how they can be exploited, especially concerning the concept of the “friend and the enemy”. It’s an incredibly powerful tactic to make the people believe that liberal democracy is not up to the task of navigating the rough waters of “extraordinary times”, nevermind if those extraordinary times are imagined or even manufactured. No, only a strong, decisive, and unencumbered executive can save us.

National security could be a valid concern. But Danish media leveraging DK gov't to rollback the reality could never be a success story. Those media are failing not because they are not in the US. Established American media have the same troubles and complains.

I'm ok with it. I think this situation is caused by the Baumol effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect

I think it's ok if the highly productive parts of society subsidize the crucial-but-low-productivity areas (healthcare, education, etc).

Otherwise this happens https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/te... See all the important careers on the bottom right of the first graph. Then your people elect fascists because the media and education systems suck and they don't know any better.

Why is it the responsibility of American tech companies to subsidize Danish news and media industries? If it's really that important for national security, shouldn't the Danish government be setting up some kind of a state journalism fund to subsidize it themselves?

This is just a shakedown of American companies.

Denmark has one of the most comprehensive media subsidy systems in the world.

Google makes a lot of money off monopolizing advertising in Denmark. They are just playing hardball, they don’t think they can be replaced.

> The publishers say that their industry is bleeding out while they wait for a deal that may never come.

It sounds like their government needs to do even more subsidizing if they're really that reliant on US companies to pay their bills.

Yep, see the article

> Denmark isn’t just resisting U.S. tech; it is one of the few nations actively building its own sovereign alternatives for critical infrastructure.

> In Rogaczewski’s view, sovereign digitization is not just a defensive measure against Silicon Valley; it is the only way to maintain the welfare state in the 21st century.

It'll just take a while cause Google is so big.

If it's a matter of national security and compromise isn't possible, I'd encourage Denmark to seek or create alternatives; it's the best they can hope for. Denmark has no obligation to deal with Google and Google has no obligation to deal with Denmark, regardless of the impact those choices have on the other party.

Yeah, and that's what China did to Google in 2010. Widely panned at the time, but perhaps prescient.

> He's basically saying journalism is a matter of National Security

But it is paid by the CIA and US (_witb CIA_) is our friend.

Maybe instead of _saying_ he shall _act_. But yes, i know, he's a politician.

Your making an argument that Denmark should take over control of Silicon Valley as a matter of their national security. I can see a win-win scenario emerging: Denmark controls Silicon Valley saving their journalists (and possibly the world) while Trump gets rid of leftish distractors plus takes control of Greenland getting a infinitly large piece of land with hugh growth potential for golf places once the ice has melted.

In this context "journalism" usually refers not to a crowd of Mothers Teresas seeking to improve society in voluntary contradiction to their own market (or guild/class/whatever) interests, but a bunch of business entities which were born out of printed newspapers, feeling uncertain about their revenues after changes in technology of information delivery ruined their niche. And trying to leverage their established relations with politicians to extract more profit. It's not like Google is offending little pixies here. After all, there are youtube channels which have a societal role too, and search engines too I guess can make a similar claim.

Other commenter's note about national security issue is more on point but then I doubt that bailing out failing news platforms would make them as influential as they used to be in the bygone era.

This does not support freedom of the press. This policy is essentially a tax on web indexers (in practice, Google) that is paid directly to the news companies. This means that they are entirely dependent on government authority for their revenue, which is the opposite of freedom of the press. On top of that, only companies that are defined as "news outlets" by the government are eligible for forced indexing and payment. So not only is the government setting itself up as the revenue source, but it gets to choose who gets the money.

lol only on this forum can you construe the government regulating big tech as an anti freedom stance.

Google, Meta, Apple, and Amazon are society destroying companies. They are Walmart times a trillion. Any country that is not directly taxing these wildly profitable companies are leaving free money on the table.

You are hiding behind the word "regulating" which is meaningless by itself instead of talking about the particular regulation in question. This is a regulation that the tech companies pay money directly to a list of media companies picked by the government. It is absolutely an anti freedom stance.

No, you're just decrying any government intervention as bad which is moronic. The only solace I can take is that a large majority of US voters despise big tech and tech workers. Go out and do some canvassing, I have across the country and the sentiment is quite clear.

Whoever is the first President to decapitate a tech company will likely be put on Mount Rushmore as a hero of the people.

Get out of your bubble because the upcoming change is going to give you whiplash.

Just like they hate oil companies. But that doesn't stop them from pulling up to the gas station, or enjoying any of the other thousands of goods and services dependent on oil. They even go out an buy massive inefficient cars and spend multiples of what they need to. And despite all the supposed hatred, no politician dares to mess with the oil industry because at the end of the day they know nothing will get the voters out for blood against them quite like rising gas prices.

They hate the tech industry you say? They want you to "decapitate" a tech company you say? Americans love two things above all else, convenience and complaining. Go ahead, take away their overnight Amazon deliveries, Google searches, smartphones, Instagram, and Tiktok, and see where that gets you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com