Comment by embedding-shape
1 month ago
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.
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?
6 replies →
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.
1 reply →
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.
5 replies →
> 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.
"We need journalism to be done 'correctly' as a matter of national security" sounds like something that the CCP would say.
11 replies →
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.
2 replies →