edit: adjusted title slightly

  • Lojcs@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    22 days ago

    …Google started adding links to archived websites in the Wayback Machine

    They better be compensating it…

    • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 days ago

      I don’t agree. Free linking has always been a vitally important part of the open internet. The principle that if I make something available on a specific URL, others can access it, and I don’t get to charge others for linking to a public URL is one of the core concepts of the internet itself.

      • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        22 days ago

        This view is a bit naive in that it doesn’t take into account a lot of variables. It favors established large actors in their ability to extract and accumulate ever more value from the ones they link.

        • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          21 days ago

          And, with respect, this view is more naive (IMHO) because it’s focused by size of company, and you can’t do that. You can’t have one set of laws for small companies and another set of laws for large companies.

          So if Google has to pay to link to IA, then so does DuckDuckGo and any other small upstart search engine that might want to make a ‘wayback machine this site!’ button.

          Google unquestionably gets value from the sites they link to. But if that value must be paid, then every other search engine has to pay it also, including little ones like DDG. That basically kills search engines as a concept, because they simply can’t work on that model.

          Thus I think your view is more naive, because you’re just trying to stick it to Google rather than considering the full range of effects your policy would have.

          • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            21 days ago

            You can’t have one set of laws for small companies and another set of laws for large companies.

            This is false. We can, and we do. Antitrust laws are one example off the top of my head. There are probably others. The assumption that every actor has to pay the same price is false as well. There are countless examples for this.

            • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              12 days ago

              Antitrust laws prevent companies from acting in a way to squeeze off competition. Small companies are also prevented from squeezing off competition. Anticompetitive practices are illegal regardless of your size.

              • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 days ago

                That’s funny but I’m not gonna argue on it. It’s easier to give another example. If you want to get informed try finding laws that depend on firm size and be convinced if you do.