← Back to context

Comment by arnaudsm

2 years ago

I understand the AI context, but this is dangerously anticompetitive for other search engines.

This is a dangerous precedent for the internet. Business conglomerates have been controlling most of the web, but refusing basic interoperability is even worse.

28 comments

arnaudsm

Reply
zooq_ai  2 years ago

There is nothing preventing search companies paying the same $60 Million to license content.

If reddit had exclusive agreement, it would be anti-competive.

This is classic HN anti-Google tirade (and downvoting facts, logic and concepts of free market)

  • not_wyoming  2 years ago

    > There is nothing preventing search companies paying the same $60 Million to license content.

    Yes, actually, there is - having $60m to throw around.

    "Barriers to entry often cause or aid the existence of monopolies and oligopolies" [0]. Monopolies and oligopolies are definitionally the opposite of free market forces. This is quite literally Econ 101.

    [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry

    • GuB-42  2 years ago

      Microsoft can throw around $60M, and Bing is used by most of the "alternative" search engines.

      It doesn't solve the problem, but if money is the only thing preventing search engines from accessing Reddit, then what goes for Google also goes for Microsoft.

      2 replies →

    • saghm  2 years ago

      Not to mention the fact that if this became commonplace, other websites might start charging as well

    • try_the_bass  2 years ago

      And yet "free market forces" are often the reason why monopolies and oligopolies arise...?

      Monopolies are entirely consistent with free market economics. After all, if there's clearly a "best product" for a particular niche, it's entirely rational (free market actor) behavior for everyone to use the same product, leading to its monopoly in that market segment.

      I don't understand why people think this isn't/won't be/shouldn't be a common result of "free market forces".

      6 replies →

    • zooq_ai  2 years ago

      Having a Monopoly != Anti-Competitive.

      Having Barriers to Entry != Anti-competitive

      Yes, large players have advantages of Economies of Scale.

      Just because you can't run an Airline because you don't have money to buy an Airplane isn't anti-competitive.

      Today Microsoft, Apple, OpenAI, Google, Amazon all can afford those piddly $60m to license from reddit.

      Not Anti-competitive at all.

      But saddened by how much corporate-hate by HNers destroys their credibility in debating these thing.

      Go ahead downvote

      7 replies →

  • pluc  2 years ago

    Paying 60 million to every site you want to index is also a bad precedent to set. Why can Reddit get paid and XYZ can't?

    • zooq_ai  2 years ago

      Anyone can ask for licensing deal. I'm sure NY Times, Conde Nest all have licensing deals. Mr. Beast signed a deal with Amazon. Joe Rogan with Spotify. Why is it hard to understand?

      Even HN can get a licensing deal if they want to.

      If you are producing content, you have every right to do what you want to with the content.

      3 replies →