petcat
6 hours ago
> In 2024, Google ran a set of tests of user interest in news content in Denmark and several other countries, concluding that removing such content had “no measurable impact” on search ad revenue. Those findings — along with the testing itself — have come under harsh criticism from Danish lawmakers.
I'm not really sure what Denmark is complaining about? It sounds like Google decided that removing Danish media and news from their services would have no impact on their finances whatsoever, therefore they are firm on their negotiating position since it's basically "take it or leave it".
And Denmark is also somehow trying to force Google to list and index their media, and at their price.
embedding-shape
6 hours 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.
petcat
5 hours ago
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.
Herring
5 hours ago
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.
broken-kebab
5 hours ago
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.
Herring
4 hours ago
I'm ok with it. I think this situation is caused by the Baumol effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect
I think it's ok if the highly productive parts of society subsidize the crucial-but-low-productivity areas (healthcare, education, etc).
Otherwise this happens https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/te... See all the important careers on the bottom right of the first graph. Then your people elect fascists because the media and education systems suck and they don't know any better.
petcat
2 hours ago
Why is it the responsibility of American tech companies to subsidize Danish news and media industries? If it's really that important for national security, shouldn't the Danish government be setting up some kind of a state journalism fund to subsidize it themselves?
This is just a shakedown of American companies.
Herring
2 hours ago
Denmark has one of the most comprehensive media subsidy systems in the world.
Google makes a lot of money off monopolizing advertising in Denmark. They are just playing hardball, they don’t think they can be replaced.
petcat
2 hours ago
> The publishers say that their industry is bleeding out while they wait for a deal that may never come.
It sounds like their government needs to do even more subsidizing if they're really that reliant on US companies to pay their bills.
Herring
2 hours ago
Yep, see the article
> Denmark isn’t just resisting U.S. tech; it is one of the few nations actively building its own sovereign alternatives for critical infrastructure.
> In Rogaczewski’s view, sovereign digitization is not just a defensive measure against Silicon Valley; it is the only way to maintain the welfare state in the 21st century.
It'll just take a while cause Google is so big.
EA-3167
3 hours ago
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.
Herring
3 hours ago
Yeah, and that's what China did to Google in 2010. Widely panned at the time, but perhaps prescient.
terminalshort
5 hours ago
"We need journalism to be done 'correctly' as a matter of national security" sounds like something that the CCP would say.
Herring
5 hours ago
The facts are clear: Regulate the companies or lose your democracy. FB's impact on democracy has been clear for a long time. This is just the latest - https://www.brusselstimes.com/1916422/us-tech-giants-allying...
SllX
4 hours ago
If regulations can legitimately be advocated for, they can be advocated against as well.
Facebook wouldn’t have any vested interest in the far left, the far right, the far up or the far down in the EU if the EU wasn’t giving them reasons to take an interest. If the parties in power were really worried that Facebook was going to be the difference-maker, they could undercut the opposition and remove the issue entirely by rolling back their needless regulations and keeping their own desire to overstep their authority and dictate terms to foreign enterprises in check.
thaumasiotes
2 hours ago
> If regulations can legitimately be advocated for, they can be advocated against as well.
That's not logically necessary.
terminalshort
3 hours ago
Wait, so supporting opposition parties is somehow losing democracy? And you want the government to prevent them from doing that?
terminalshort
4 hours ago
So you say we must choose between losing freedom of the press and losing democracy? I say you lose democracy if you lose freedom of the press.
camgunz
4 hours ago
There's already boundaries on what the press can and cannot print (libel, etc). Gotta get out of Constitutional Law 101
terminalshort
4 hours ago
Right. You must be referring to the libel laws that have specific exemptions for politically powerful or otherwise publicly prominent individuals specifically to avoid intrusion into freedom of the press. And you think that helps your point?
irishcoffee
5 hours ago
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?
anigbrowl
5 hours ago
In practice, that's a form of censorship since it inhibits the ability of people in Denmark to discover domestic news articles through search.
polishTar
3 hours ago
But Google is willing to host their content in search, right?
They're just not willing to pay since there's no revenue benefit to search hosting it. It seems like Danish media doesn't like this and has chosen to withhold their content, which is their right of course, but it seems strange to contort that into a claim that Google is doing censorship.
irishcoffee
2 hours ago
> In practice, that's a form of censorship since it inhibits the ability of people in Denmark to discover domestic news articles through search.
No it doesn't. It it inhibits the ability of people in Denmark to discover domestic news articles through GOOGLE search. A subtle but hugely distinct difference, making your point quite moot.
broken-kebab
5 hours ago
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.
terminalshort
5 hours ago
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.
shimman
5 hours ago
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.
terminalshort
4 hours ago
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.
shimman
4 hours ago
No, you're just decrying any government intervention as bad which is moronic. The only solace I can take is that a large majority of US voters despise big tech and tech workers. Go out and do some canvassing, I have across the country and the sentiment is quite clear.
Whoever is the first President to decapitate a tech company will likely be put on Mount Rushmore as a hero of the people.
Get out of your bubble because the upcoming change is going to give you whiplash.
terminalshort
4 hours ago
Just like they hate oil companies. But that doesn't stop them from pulling up to the gas station, or enjoying any of the other thousands of goods and services dependent on oil. They even go out an buy massive inefficient cars and spend multiples of what they need to. And despite all the supposed hatred, no politician dares to mess with the oil industry because at the end of the day they know nothing will get the voters out for blood against them quite like rising gas prices.
They hate the tech industry you say? They want you to "decapitate" a tech company you say? Americans love two things above all else, convenience and complaining. Go ahead, take away their overnight Amazon deliveries, Google searches, smartphones, Instagram, and Tiktok, and see where that gets you.
dybber
5 hours ago
The criticism was that Google have a dominant position on search market, Google selected 1% of their users to run the experiment on, but without informing them. That is users didn’t know that their search results were manipulated and articles they would otherwise have found didn’t show up.
So the argument presented by Danish authorities and media companies were that information should flow freely in a democracy and by doing a huge experiment like this without informing users is against the rights of Danish citizens.
terminalshort
5 hours ago
"Manipulated" is a loaded and meaningless term here. All results are generated by algorithm, so that means 99% see the output of algorithm A and 1% see the output of algorithm B. Neither is more "manipulated" than the other.
onemoresoop
4 hours ago
It is possible that neither are more manipuled tough it's impossible to tell. What seems clear from your example above is that both are manipulated, just in different ways and with google's incentive. It is understandable that countries came to the conclusion that this is posing a threat to their national security.
nearbuy
4 hours ago
"Manipulated" has strong negative connotations, but it could just mean that the results are chosen and controlled by the search engine. In which case, it's a meaningless statement. The entire purpose of any search engine is to choose results for queries.
Or it can mean the results were altered from some ideal baseline algorithm that we consider unmanipulated. The only obvious candidate for this baseline would be the search engine's regular algorithm. But if you're saying that's not the baseline, then it's unclear what you consider to be the true baseline and therefore unclear what "manipulated" means.
I agree that countries may consider search engines, social media, or anything else that can affect flow of information to be a national security threat.
terminalshort
3 hours ago
And what, exactly, is the national security threat here? If Google is manipulating results to favor its advertisers or the political positions of its owners, that's what all publishers do, and have always done and nobody ever called it a national security threat. The "national security threat" here seems to be that they are showing people content that the government doesn't want them to see.
nearbuy
5 hours ago
Of course they wouldn't tell users if they're in the control group or experimental group. It would destroy the validity of the experiment.
dangus
5 hours ago
You still should have to consent to be studied.
I’ve been part of multiple clinical trials and consent was always there. The control group exists. They know they’re in the study but they may not know they’re the control group.
nearbuy
4 hours ago
I'm not commenting on the ethics of A/B testing without informing the customer.
Maybe I misunderstood the comment I was replying to. If they meant that the experiment's results were probably valid but conducting the experiment was unethical, then my response was unnecessary.
mainecoder
5 hours ago
First it is not manipulation please read the terms of service and user consent on this issue. Second this is standard practice A/B testing is universal and companies do a holdout experiment all the time it is also called Withholding test.
VWWHFSfQ
6 hours ago
It sounds to me like Denmark's media and news isn't very valuable from an ad sales perspective. So Google has set their price reflecting what they think that value is: not much. And Denmark is now getting their lawmakers involved because they think it's worth a lot more and they want to force Google to buy it for a lot more.
Honestly, it doesn't sound like a lot of these EU countries are interested in digital sovereignty or developing their own services. They just want to force the American companies to sell their services at rates favorable to them by getting their regulators involved.
petcat
5 hours ago
Yeah it seems like if they were really struggling to break up then they wouldn't be trying to force Google or Meta to the negotiating table. They would be simply kicking them out and not utilizing their services at all.
But it's actually the opposite. They are trying to get their lawmakers to force Google and Meta to provide them their services at below market value!
dybber
5 hours ago
It seems like Google and Meta are using their dominant position to take as big a part of ad revenue as they possibly can, and if that means independent news companies where actual journalism is conducted can’t survive, then they don’t really care.
Danish media are trying to survive, as high quality journalism is necessary for democracy to function. They can’t avoid being on the big platforms, as Google and Meta have this dominant gatekeeper position in the market - this is where the media pull new users into their sites.
terminalshort
5 hours ago
People who are capable of building things don't go into government. "Bureaucracy" has a connotation of where creativity and innovation goes to die for a reason. The personality type that goes into bureaucracy thinks about this like "why would I put in the effort to build something when I could just use the state monopoly on violence to shake down the suckers who already did all that hard work for me?" Of course they lie to the public, and most importantly to themselves, that they have higher motives, but that is the underlying logic.
Daishiman
4 hours ago
> People who are capable of building things don't go into government.
Spoken like an American who doesn't know what government actually does.
terminalshort
4 hours ago
Well in our case what it does is mostly get in the way of building things