• ElderberryLow@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I wondered the same. It’s not my primary way for getting news but it’s a good option to have if looking for articles on a certain topic.

    • Rob@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      probally has to do with a future plan to not pay for news content.

      In order for Google to improve profitability they targeted adblockers and adblockers in 3rd party browsers.

      If my prediction isn’t too far off, countries that enforce laws forcing Google to pay to the news may not get news at all or *very limited.

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Because the content they show is literally the content the sites explicitly set up for the sole purpose of “if you link to my site, pretty please show this preview to make our link more attractive”. The idea that they owe a royalty for showing the content sites are explicitly asking them to show is completely indefensible.

      • moistclump@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Canada put a law in place last year requiring meta and Google to pay for users clicks into Canadian media. Facebook stopped allowing the sharing of our reputable news sources and I was temporarily impressed that Google continued on.

        • Rob@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          That is probally why. As more and more countries stack up more news tax for the tech companies. People seem to forget that news is optional for them, and shouldn’t take that for granted.

          Google search doesn’t need news, Facebook doesn’t need it, why would they want to pay for it?