• linguine@feddit.rocks
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    4 days ago

    Sounds like a link tax, not actually reproducing any written content. I really dislike link taxes, they’re gonna break the internet at some point if they don’t see pushback.

    • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      4 days ago

      If the code automatically shows the article or summarizes it without clicking on the link, then yeah, that’s infringement. It should only show the title and the link imo.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Except the summary is almost always literally the content the sites ask the sites linking them to show.

        They have “please show this preview instead of a boring plain link” code.

        • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          4 days ago

          This. They even provide the cover image to use. If they don’t want embedding they could just block the request.

          But they don’t want to. They want to sell the cake and eat it too.

            • General_Effort@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              More like: They want to sell the cake and be paid when you recommend it to others.

              Mind that news media don’t pay when they link to social media, quote people, or even report what other media has reported. The real question is, if this law has any beneficial effect for society. I don’t see how.

                  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 days ago

                    No, I’m not saying anything about ‘should’.

                    It’s about a lawsuit here, and I have told that this may be what has violated the law.

                    The court will tell you for sure, in the end.

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        It should only show the title and the link imo.

        That’s infringement in Europe, which makes it effectively a link tax.

    • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Now when I open a Google map link my wife sent from messenger, messenger opens a copy of maps inside messenger that doesn’t work half the time. Is that excluded from link tax?

      When musks puts unskippable ads to go to content instead of reading it almost in its entirety right on the site (with an ad besides it), is that also link tax?

      Enshitification of links is what will break the internet. Musk would be the first to sue for this.

      • Corngood@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 days ago

        I’m in Canada, and I sent a cbc.ca news link to someone in instagram chat. It showed a preview of the post with a picture and summary, but when the link was clicked it went to a page that said:

        People in Canada can’t view this content.

        Content from news publications can’t be viewed in Canada in response to Canadian government legislation.

        • Gawdl3y@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          These previews are almost always specified by the website themself, using the OpenGraph protocol. The website is literally asking other services to “use this for the preview’s image, and this block of text for the description, please!”