Google Vows To Stop Linking To New Zealand News If Forced To Pay For Content (apnews.com) 68
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: Google said Friday it will stop linking to New Zealand news content and will reverse its support of local media outlets if the government passes a law forcing tech companies to pay for articles displayed on their platforms. The vow to sever Google traffic to New Zealand news sites -- made in a blog post by the search giant on Friday -- echoes strategies the firm deployed as Australia and Canada prepared to enact similar laws in recent years. It followed a surprise announcement by New Zealand's government in July that lawmakers would advance a bill forcing tech platforms to strike deals for sharing revenue generated from news content with the media outlets producing it.
The government, led by center-right National, had opposed the law in 2023 when introduced by the previous administration. But the loss of more than 200 newsroom jobs earlier this year -- in a national media industry that totaled 1,600 reporters at the 2018 census and has likely shrunk since -- prompted the current government to reconsider forcing tech companies to pay publishers for displaying content. The law aims to stanch the flow offshore of advertising revenue derived from New Zealand news products. If the media law passes, Google New Zealand Country Director Caroline Rainsford said the firm would need to change its involvement in the country. "Specifically, we'd be forced to stop linking to news content on Google Search, Google News, or Discover surfaces in New Zealand and discontinue our current commercial agreements and ecosystem support with New Zealand news publishers."
Google's licensing program in New Zealand contributed "millions of dollars per year to almost 50 local publications," she added.
The government, led by center-right National, had opposed the law in 2023 when introduced by the previous administration. But the loss of more than 200 newsroom jobs earlier this year -- in a national media industry that totaled 1,600 reporters at the 2018 census and has likely shrunk since -- prompted the current government to reconsider forcing tech companies to pay publishers for displaying content. The law aims to stanch the flow offshore of advertising revenue derived from New Zealand news products. If the media law passes, Google New Zealand Country Director Caroline Rainsford said the firm would need to change its involvement in the country. "Specifically, we'd be forced to stop linking to news content on Google Search, Google News, or Discover surfaces in New Zealand and discontinue our current commercial agreements and ecosystem support with New Zealand news publishers."
Google's licensing program in New Zealand contributed "millions of dollars per year to almost 50 local publications," she added.
Lies, all lies from Google (or: Yeah ok, "Eric") (Score:1, Insightful)
Google dimwit Caroline Rainsford said:
"Specifically, we'd be forced to stop linking to news content on Google Search, Google News, or Discover surfaces in New Zealand and discontinue our current commercial agreements and ecosystem support with New Zealand news publishers"
No, dimwit, you'd be "forc[ed] to pay for articles [created by New Zealand news publishers] displayed on [your platform]". You call yourself a "director"!?!
Re: (Score:2)
They are unwilling to pay and thus a law requiring them to pay would force them to stop.
What she said was true... from a certain point of view.
Re:Lies, all lies from Google (or: Yeah ok, "Eric" (Score:4, Informative)
So true. When I started 7am News back in the 1990s, I built a pretty big online business out of aggregating news headlines and links that were then made available to any other site via a Java news-ticker applet. With over 200,000 websites running the news ticker this service directed a lot of traffic to the news sites that were linked. Virtually every news publisher appreciated the extra traffic and it was only Nando News that objected and demanded to be paid [cnet.com] for the links to its content.
Eventually they gave up and also recognized that this was a symbiotic relationship with a value-exchange.
Sadly, modern news publishers don't understand the value-exchange concept and want to be paid by Google for using their headlines and linking to their content.
The best thing Google could do is say "if you don't want traffic from our site then that's fine, we won't send it".
What ever happened to the good old days of the Net eh?
Re:Lies, all lies from Google (or: Yeah ok, "Eric" (Score:5, Informative)
Google doesn't aggregate headlines and links. It also aggregates content of the stories and pictures from the stories. I'm curious what the sites you aggregated back then would have said about that, particularly given the advertising economics of today which are significantly different. Websites are no longer just "curious little sidehustles" for news organizations like they were in the 90s.
And I worked in the online advertising world in the 90s, writing ad servers and campaign reporting systems. Shit is very different today and the comparison you're making doesn't hold up at all in my opinion.
Re:Lies, all lies from Google (or: Yeah ok, "Eric" (Score:4, Interesting)
It also aggregates content of the stories and pictures from the stories.
The "content" is a few sentences, and the pictures are a thumbnail.
It's just enough to know if you want to click to go to the hosting website.
I subscribe and pay for a digital subscription to Economist.com [economist.com]. For everything else, if it isn't listed on news.google.com, I won't see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if Google was republishing the content of news sites without permission they could apply for relief under copyright laws which exist to prevent such exploitation. The reality is that they're not infringing copyright -- the tiny amount of information used is simply "fair use" that allows them to create an index that then serves to drive traffic to those sites.
It's really not much different to how it was in the 1990s... however...
Once Google starts using AI to create its own news stories by scraping th
Re: (Score:2)
Because google steals content from everyone without paying for it. Always has. Always will. Delisting one or two news sites won't change the fact that google is strip mining the entire news industry, leaving a giant crater in its place.
Re:Lies, all lies from Google (or: Yeah ok, "Eric" (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook is trying this crap in Canada, eh. no problem tho bro, Canadians just don't use Facebook much anymore. most of my facebook friends have branched out and or migrated to other platforms. besides facebook is getting more spammy with each passing day, some groups are ok but the ads are all manipulative and unethical
I call it Meta[stasize] now (Score:5, Insightful)
besides facebook is getting more spammy with each passing day, some groups are ok but the ads are all manipulative and unethical
That's why I call it "Meta[stasize]" now.
Re: Lies, all lies from Google (or: Yeah ok, "Eric (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)m curious which is the most common platform they head to, when leaving Facebook? Iâ(TM)d like to consider reasonable alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not an option for them.
If this passes, there is a specific action they would be forced to take by their own internal pressures, not the external ones.
So this law forces them to withdraw.
If they believe Google is bad for business (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: If they believe Google is bad for business (Score:3, Informative)
Google has market dominance in search. The reason companies can't just turn off indexing is because it's economic suicide because of that market dominance.
Now, it's not illegal to have a monopoly, but it is illegal (at least in theory but basically not in practice any more thanks to chucklefucks like you) to use that monopoly position in one market (search) to leverage position in another market (advertising). Guess who is also market dominant in online advertising, who get paid for the ad impressions for s
Re: If they believe Google is bad for business (Score:5, Insightful)
Google abusing a monopoly position is a different matter entirely and trying to tangle it up with this just makes for more of a mess. If you make Google pay those companies Incan guarantee you that all you've done is cement any monopoly position they have because none of their smaller competitors would be able to afford those payments.
Re: If they believe Google is bad for business (Score:1)
"is another matter entirely"
*facepalm*
Re: (Score:3)
The amount of traffic websites get from people visiting the main page is basically zilch. The overwhelming majority of traffic comes from deeplinking, which comes from searching for articles and sharing content (eg: Google/Meta). Google and Meta both make money by taking some of that deeplink content, which keeps users on their property, making them money using content they did not produce. Companies can't afford to tell Google and Meta because Google and Meta are effectively the only game in town for peopl
Re: If they believe Google is bad for business (Score:4)
monopoly position in one market (search)
Search isn't a market, though. A market requires buyers and sellers, and there aren't any of either. Search services are offered for free, and users pay nothing for them.
Search is just a way to draw traffic for ads. The same is true of (non-paywalled) news and similar content. The fact is that search and news sites are in the same market -- providing surface for advertising, and drawing eyeballs to those ads. They're competitors... and also cooperators. Search benefits from including news in the results because it makes search more useful, and news sites benefit from being included in search results because it drives traffic to them.
But if the law forces search engines to pay more to the news sites than the value the search engines get from including news in the results, then obviously the search engines will stop including them. Likewise, if the news sites believe the search engine is not giving them value, they should opt out -- which they can easily do via robots.txt configurations.
Guess who is also market dominant in online advertising, who get paid for the ad impressions for serving copy and photos written and produced by news organizations?
Yes, this is true, but the news organizations aren't alleging that Google's ad network is somehow not working for them, or that the fact that the search engine comes from the same company as the ad network is somehow unfair. This part of your argument is a red herring.
Most people do not click through, being sated by the "value" of the summary previews
This seems actually related to the complaint, it may be the core of the complaint, but it seems to me that the appropriate remedy for that problem is to tell search engines to stop showing summaries, rather than requiring them to pay to link.
Re: (Score:2)
Search isn't a market, though. A market requires buyers and sellers, and there aren't any of either. Search services are offered for free, and users pay nothing for them.
yikes, disagree. markets that are primarily ad revenue driven are not in the same market just because they're both primarily ad revenue driven. that's .. uh a fucked up view of markets unless you subscribe to a viewpoint that markets are not about what is produced, but rather how they are funded. People *buy* things - seemingly for free - b
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
People are BOYCOTTING THEM because they are WOKE and CORRUPT and DELUSIONAL.
You were providing somewhat reasonable arguments until you couldn't help but go conspiracy theorizing in all-out right-wing-nutjob mode. Turns out that seeming reasonableness was mere rationalization then. Too bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If they believe Google is bad for business (Score:5, Interesting)
The original promise of search engines like Google is that if you let Google index, people will search for pages and that will give you traffic. It's a win-win and they are happy with that part. What they don't agree with is Google having a "Google News" homepage where they post an image and enough of the summary such that there no traffic is sent. This mode is parasitic.
There isn't a robots.txt option to accept one and not the other. Google says that they will delist the entire websites, which isn't what the news outlets are asking for, and isn't even in the interest of Google (since Google makes profits from Search). The only way to understand why Google would go against their own economical interests is because they attempt to blackmail the publishers, using their leverage in Search to coerce them into terms on the News offer.
The thing is, Google only has a leverage when they can negotiate terms with each individual publication, where negotiate means "Google won't pay a cent, take it or leave it". Publications who get delisted instantly lose to their news outlet competitors. But when those things are made into law, delisting the entire news outlets of a country won't play in favour of Google. People still want to check national and local news, so if google delists the entire nation, people will start using Bing or whatever else that accepts the terms of the law (we don't hear Microsoft complaining, that means they'll be happy to eat Gogole's lunch).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Why would Kiwis want 'news' curated by a foreign power?
You yanks can shove your imperialism up your backside.
At least it's not Rupert Merdecock.
Re: (Score:2)
Google has little real leverage.
For instance their rules say that if you give Google a summary you can't then go paywall the click-through.
But sites do it all the time.
Google's resource is to delist them. But they never do.
They have a form where you can complain but they just /dev/null those.
Media Bribe (Score:3)
The result so far is that big media companies did ok from the deal, smaller ones did n
Re: Media Bribe (Score:1)
And then the government complained that Facebook would not carry news for people facing emergency evacuation due to disasters.
Re: (Score:3)
You're blaming the victim. It's the woman's fault for wearing a provocative skirt. If she didn't want to be catcalled and groped, she should worn dull clothing, or a sandwich board saying "stay away".
The news sites aren't dumping their stuff on Google's lawn. Google's computers are actively scraping their sites for news and headlines, and then displaying those news and headlines in a way that doesn't necessarily require the user to click on them. The onus is not on the news outlet to do anything. It's
Re: (Score:2)
Google said many years ago that they were ignoring robots.txt. Most crawlers do these days.
In the past when Google has made this threat, they ended up paying. It's a negotiating tactic. The data is valuable to them and they will most likely capitulate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You'd think so wouldn't you! Well, maybe unless you took a few minutes think about why the websites do have an issue with it. It's because they're actually *stopping traffic* because actual user behavior analysis shows that by showing summaries and photos from linked-to articles, it actually *prevents* a majority of people from clicking through. Once people read a summary and see a picture, they figure they've "got the idea" and remain engaged on the Meta/Google property, depriving the linked-to website pot
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why my comment was "Flamebait". It's a documented fact that Meta has been trying to intimidate Canada into allowing it to grab news content for free, and it's obvious Google is trying to pull the same kind of thuggish bullying tactics in New Zealand, though to slightly different ends. Both Canada and New Zealand are fairly wealthy countries with small populations, vulnerable to corporations who can simply bribe a US Senator or Congressman to put the economic and political power of the United Stat
Negotiating Tactic (Score:3)
This is just Google negotiating on a final price. We've been through this before with Google. Its M.O. is to threaten deindexing, then accept a counteroffer. Google will cave, and New Zealand will get its money.
Worked in Canada (Score:2)
Interestingly Facebook did not do that though and now do not link to any Canadian news sources which has lead to a huge drop in Canadians getting their news from Facebook and has also forced government to develop non-Facebook m
Re: (Score:2)
This is just Google negotiating on a final price. We've been through this before with Google. Its M.O. is to threaten deindexing, then accept a counteroffer. Google will cave, and New Zealand will get its money.
As a result of doing this in Australia, google has de-prioritised most Australian media sources, especially outside of Australia. You'll rarely see articles from the Australian or other Murdoch owned media (Murdoch owns most of it, hence he was practically able to write said law in Australia). NZ doesn't have a market with nearly as much power as Australia either.
Third option (Score:2)
Eg: unless it has an agreement with the news site, Google (and Facebook, and others) would be allowed to use the headline and link to the article.
How are y'all seeing more than the headline? (Score:2)
When I go to news.google.com, I see article headlines, and about every fourth article has a thumbnail of a photo.
Re: (Score:2)
Do a google search about something topical. Click on the "news" tab. Google has a picture and at least one sentence from the deep-linked article for *every* result.
Re: (Score:2)
OH MY GOSH, an ENTIRE ONE SENTENCE? How are all the newspaper editors GOING TO GET PAID if Google doesn't subsidize them?!?!
Re: (Score:2)
OH MY GOSH, an ENTIRE ONE SENTENCE?
You seem to be unaware of how news articles are written. I guess news writing wasn't a topic in your literature classes back in school?
It works like this: the first sentence of an article is the most important and informative. The second paragraph adds most relevant supporting information. The following paragraphs go about adding less and less important details, until the topic is exhausted.
This allows syndicated news buyers to purchase articles in bulk from news providers, then fit the articles purchase to
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Troll fail. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
Do a google search about something topical. Click on the "news" tab. Google has a picture and at least one sentence from the deep-linked article for *every* result.
Nope. Doesn't matter whether I'm in my own window or in an incognito window. Headline and a photo only. I'm in California; haven't tried using SurfShark to see if it differs elsewhere.
Re: (Score:1)
Look at Google News, it's a short description and a title. Google has never shown the entire website or article for any site they index.
AI is different, but I don't think we're talking about AI here. That's an easy fix though. You use ChatGPT 4o-mini to rewrite your article into a summary and display that to Google instead of the full article, so that people will click through for more details.
I guarentee though, if they ban news, people will
Re: (Score:2)
As you can see with slashdot, most people don't read beyond the headline. It's a genuine problem.
Just as journalists having gone from investigative and neutral to access journalists and propaganda professionals to chase the clicks and sources on the cheap. So now headlines are often in direct conflict with body of the story, and both headline and body are in conflict with reality.
shittle (Score:1)
Google Tag Manager and YouTube Therefore Useless (Score:3)
Wouldn't it be fun if NZ media at this point say "So remind us again why we should use Google Tag Manager and YouTube if you're not linking us, mate."
If the whole of NZ media is delinked from Google, you can bet your last kiwifruit that alternatives will pop up locally - as well as driving the NZ public from Google to Duckduckgo, Playeur and all the rest. Good thing IMHO, and the local IT industry would be cracking open a few celebratory beersies. The Kiwis have a lot to say about colonial attitudes at the moment.
Centre-right? Yeah, right. (Score:3, Interesting)
*This* National government ain't centre-right. They're almost right-wing enough for the US.
Ok (Score:1)
Ok
Have we forgotten what the press is for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, rant activated! Writing and publishing the news—much like writing and publishing music—is on life support. These days, only the big players or national entities have any chance of making it commercially viable. For the other 99%, there’s simply no money in it anymore. This hits local news especially hard. Imagine there’s a power outage in your town, and you want to know what caused it. Was it vandalism? Seismic activity? Or maybe the local council cut corners on infrastructure maintenance? This is the sort of thing your local paper or radio station would have covered a decade ago. Now? Good luck. You’ll likely never know—and that means no one will ever be held accountable.
Think about the issues that actually affect your life: sewage, local corruption, crime, school problems, who’s running the council, dangerous situations. These matter more to you than national elections or the latest foreign conflict, yet finding reliable info on them is becoming impossible. If local journalism isn’t already gone in your area, it’s probably on its way out. Say goodbye to staying informed. Sa-yo-na-ra!
The *only* solution is finding a way to fund news gathering and journalism—somehow. No one wants to pay for it, yet...
The tragedy here is that local journalism is critical for holding power in check at the community level. National outlets handle the big-ticket items, sure, but local reporters are the ones investigating why your neighborhood floods every year, why your school isn't getting enough funding, and where public money is going. These journalists are the watchdogs who keep local governments and councilors under scrutiny. When decisions about selling public land or cutting emergency services are made, they’re often the only ones telling you what’s at stake.
Without local journalism, local leaders get a free pass to operate in the shadows. There's no one to investigate backroom deals or expose mismanagement of public funds. The direct impact on your community and daily life is immense, but without journalists to uncover the truth, you're left in the dark.
Local journalism is more than just a watchdog, though. It builds community, connects people, and highlights the achievements of your neighbors. It amplifies the voices of local businesses and artists. Without it, towns lose their sense of identity and become isolated from their own stories. It’s not just a loss of accountability—it’s a loss of community cohesion.
So when we talk about funding journalism, it’s not just about keeping national outlets alive. It’s about ensuring your town stays informed, your leaders are held accountable, and your community retains its character. Sure, no one wants to pay for it, but the cost of losing it is far greater. And this isn’t some abstract problem—it’s already real. I live in a local news desert. There is literally *no* information available about what’s happening in my town. The closest coverage I can get comes from a city an hour away. It’s isolating.
So, how do we fix this? The only real solution might be community-supported journalism funded through taxes—something like a local PBS/BBC/NHK model. Alternatively, maybe charities could step in. Either way, we as a society need this, right? Or are we just going to sit back and assume everything will be fine? (Insert that meme of the dog sitting in a burning house drinking coffee here).
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, rant activated!
If only I still had mod points - it's often the way: nothing worth really promoting, so you let them slip away, then someone speaks truth.
So, you'll have to settle for this 'pointless' reply I'm afraid.
Either way, we as a society need this, right?
Right!
In regards to the media shrinkage (Score:2)
The first is that people are moving elsewhere as the New Zealand media have extreme political slants in a couple of areas.
Secondly, much of the media was reposts from overseas. Now people can just go to the source.
Thirdly, and probably the greatest problem is that the government is in broadcasting with radio and television stations and although some of these make a profit they also cannot
Making money (Score:2)
If there's one thing we can be certain of, it is that Google are making money from what they are doing wrt "linking" to other's news publications. So, it's not unreasonable for those others to ask for a share of it, even if they do already make more due to increased traffic.
It is not a binary issue. Both sides have to do the maths and decide if it is still worth their while with the new share of profits. It's not "all or nothing", like Google seem to be implying.
It sounds an awful lot like what they did in
So long, farewell (Score:2)
Fluff News (Score:2)
I often click through Google News articles if sn article is interesting.
That's not the same as informative.
The trouble is a one-sentence summary is sufficient for maybe 60% of all informative news articles.
All the rest is fluff from a bygone era where selling broadsheet ad space was the business nodel.
Google should do a deal with X to use their Grok to extract those one-sentence summaries from primary sources.
Then they won't need local "journalists" who frankly could be using their talents for more than fil
Oh noes!!! (Score:2)
This was a disaster in Canada (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Online News Act was passed in June 2023, whereas more than 450 news outlets in Canada have closed since 2008. https://ijnet.org/en/story/can... [ijnet.org]
Google threatened to do this in Canada (Score:2)
But they backed down and came to an agreement with the government.
Facebook didn't, but that's fine. Not seeing news on Facebook is a plus IMO.
Google News ads (Score:2)
I used to use Google News, but then I noticed that there were always one or two stories near the top which talked about some great product I could buy cheaper. These stories always contained sponsored links. Even though I had blacklisted those websites, I still got those stories.
Get them to pay tax while your at it (Score:1)
Get them to pay tax while your at it. Google get a tonne of ad revenue paid to them internationally, so the New Zealand revenue is tiny compared to revenue originating from New Zealand. If the want to play hard ball, play hard ball.