Slashdot Mirror
Google Says It Hasn't Promised To Help News Sites By Sharing Money and User Data (cnet.com)
UPDATE (2:53 PST): Google say it hasn't lined up any deals to share revenue and user data with online news sites, calling Sunday news reports "totally wrong."
"We have not reached any conclusions on the revenue side," Google spokeswoman Maggie Shiels told CNET. "We haven't reached any conclusions [regarding] subscriptions and need to speak to publishers."
An anonymous reader shared the text of CNET's original report: The web giant is planning to share a chunk of its revenue with publishers, the Financial Times reported Sunday. Google's plan is to mate its treasure trove of personal data with machine learning algorithms to help news publications grow their subscriber base, the newspaper reported... The deal Google is offering to news publishers will reportedly be similar to the arrangement Google has with traditional advertisers through its AdSense business. "We want to have a healthy ecosystem where we'll benefit both as a society and with our business," Richard Gringas, Google's head of news, told the FT.
Financial Times claimed that Google had promised that the revenue sharing "will be very, very generous," while TechCrunch had reported that Google would also be claiming "a 30% finder's fee" for every new subscriber.
"We have not reached any conclusions on the revenue side," Google spokeswoman Maggie Shiels told CNET. "We haven't reached any conclusions [regarding] subscriptions and need to speak to publishers."
An anonymous reader shared the text of CNET's original report: The web giant is planning to share a chunk of its revenue with publishers, the Financial Times reported Sunday. Google's plan is to mate its treasure trove of personal data with machine learning algorithms to help news publications grow their subscriber base, the newspaper reported... The deal Google is offering to news publishers will reportedly be similar to the arrangement Google has with traditional advertisers through its AdSense business. "We want to have a healthy ecosystem where we'll benefit both as a society and with our business," Richard Gringas, Google's head of news, told the FT.
Financial Times claimed that Google had promised that the revenue sharing "will be very, very generous," while TechCrunch had reported that Google would also be claiming "a 30% finder's fee" for every new subscriber.
or are they just afraid of Anti-trust? Because previously they just used to stick of pulling them from google search results to keep the news sites in line.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
then call the shots.
Is that still a thing? Why would anyone pay for news. Plenty of content for free. It's garbage mostly.
A lot of the propaganda machines in the newspaper and magazine industry are failing, and rightly so. So of course Google is going to prop them up, in exchange for some "favors" that they would rather you didn't hear about.
I pay for two different online news subscriptions and wish there was reciprocal membership agreements between various sites. Just like how national broadcast news media organizations have ties to their local affiliates, NY Times should form partnerships with various small news papers across the country for access to their local reporters and content sharing.
For those on Windows 10 I am sure you have noticed news alerts in your action center as well as flashing news with pictures on the tile when you click the start button. Microsoft also charges a 30% fee for news which redirects you to USAtoday or Time.com or something in their UWP container.
I have a feeling the next version of Android will come with the same. Perhaps a refresh on the Google start page that shows news items in addition to your frequently visited sites.
http://saveie6.com/
Only if your news site reports only the official approved news. Any of that "conspiracy" stuff or "fake news" and you'll be kicked out.
I wonder why I feel that way.
In the short term, Google has changed they way people access information and news and made itself a powerful gate-keeper. In the longer term, their revenue model is killing off the very stuff that Google depends on; content that people want to read on a regular basis, i.e. high-quality. Google doesn't produce any high-quality content. They aren't writers or publishers and now they've publicly admitted the bind they're in. Their solution: Offering money back to the publishers they've been taking it away from but what about the strings Google are going to attach?
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
"We want to have a healthy ecosystem where we'll benefit both as a society and with our business"
Benefit as a society? You mean when you serve up fake news, fake sites, revise your algorithms, have no review process of those algorithms, put up mainstream sites over in-depth sites, and sell ads based on search terms, now applied to news? You, who stuck news feeds forcibly in your mainstream browser, without asking the user, hammering load times and networks with s flurry of ad connections?
Healthy ecosystem? You regularly out those with alternative lifestyles. Domestically, you have paid shills touting your services, hired as consultants other times. You had terrorist videos, then you didn't, so are you pro-free speech, or are only some evils exempt to it? You have rampant security holes in your OSs, give preferential treatment to your hardware, including forcing news feeds in your own browser, Chrome, with no settings to turn off except buried in specious flag settings, which you changed on a subsequent update to piss everyone off that had turned them off. You were part of a Russian effort to undermine our elections, took part in the echo chamber of party politics on both sides, were just implicated in shutting down a Chinese dissident on government advisement.
This is your track record of late. The old Google is dead. You sold out. With deadly consequences. You do evil everyday.
Now you're going to track my information, use ad connections, to sell and connect to any news site that pays up? What. Could. Go Wrong. Are you going to take responsibility when that news organization gets hacked? When Breitbart or Sinclair Media gets a hold of who people are, and starts selling that in for to telemarketers, to PACs, to head hunting groups, to the alt--right Strom Front or whatever and the KKK? You going to out gun owners and hand gun users? Or confuse paintballers with firearm owners? Or is this specious selection with some news outlets, or as China showed who paids top dollar, to gain access with little review?
You have been shown to be capricious and woefully incompetent in the recent past. What makes you think you are even capable of pulling this off intelligently? Hell, your ad network still thinks I'm a girl, uses Mopar parts, and a male senior citizen, all of which are untrue. You sell out search terms to the cops all the time. Can't wait to see news items and search terms fly up on the next, Breaking News, the flurry of search terms, ads served up, more data compiled and track so you can make money off large scale pseudo-microtransactions.
Nah, they've just realized that there's more money in controlling the news and having it beholden to their corporate interest.
Things get a lot easier when you can ensure that your competitors get bad press.
Whether you call it a finder's fee or a payment for protection, to go to an independent business that already exists and would normally not be beholden to a larger entity, change the rules that they live under, and say we'll be very, very generous and only take xxx percent of the business we let you keep is a classic mob-style shakedown.
It seems like someone needs to be taking a serious look at the racketeering laws.
"We want to have a healthy ecosystem where we'll benefit both as a society and with our business," Richard Gringas, Google's head of news, told the FT.
What a lying sack of shit. Pretty sure google doesn't care what happens to society so long as the dollars keep rolling in.
Here's a link to a Canadian report [PDF] begging and pleading for taxpayer support for newspapers. https://shatteredmirror.ca/wp-... Page 18 has a graph to numbers of newspapers sold per 100 households in Canada. Some datapoints...
* 1950 102 newspapers per 100 households
* 1975 79
* 1995 49
* 2015 18
Extrapolate to 2027, and the number hits zero sold. There'll still be the freebie rags in newstands at bus stops and subway stations.
US numbers are also bad. Go to http://www.journalism.org/fact... and under "Audience" click on the "Data" tab. US weekday circulation peaked at 63.34 million in 1984, and has since dropped to under 34.7 million in 2016. The past 2 years have been the worst, losing almost 3 million per year.
I repeat, newspapers as we know them are dying, deal with it.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Whose responsibility at the Financial Times is it to verify data before publishing it as fact? How culpable are the editors here for publishing fake news?
"UPDATE (2:53 PST): Google say it hasn't lined up any deals to share revenue and user data with online news sites, calling Sunday news reports "totally wrong."
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2