• linguine@feddit.rocks
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    1 month 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.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month 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
          19
          ·
          1 month 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
              ·
              1 month 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.

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month 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
      1 month 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
        ·
        1 month 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month 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!”

    • vxx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      How do you know it’s about link previews?

      The arcticle mentions that it’s about redistributing the content without payment.

      Microsoft, Google and Meta got in trouble as well in the past and got a fine or agreed to paid up.

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Because that’s one key feature in the “2019 European directive adopted into French law”. It’s also what the Google fine was about.

        Also, X isn’t really suitable for copy/pasting entire articles, like is done on lemmy. So that’s probably not it.

        • vxx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Are you sure about that?

          At the same time, the use of individual words or very short extracts of press publications by information society service providers may not undermine the investments made by publishers of press publications in the production of content. Therefore, it is appropriate to provide that the use of individual words or very short extracts of press publications should not fall within the scope of the rights provided for in this Directive. Taking into account the massive aggregation and use of press publications by information society service providers, it is important that the exclusion of very short extracts be interpreted in such a way as not to affect the effectiveness of the rights provided for in this Directive.

          https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/790/oj

          • General_Effort@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Hmm. It was a big issue at the time. In truth, I’m really not sure how it works in France. Anyway, the big fight going on is really about minimal previews. Unfortunately, there is no disinterested reporting on the issue. The media is very much profit-maximizing.

            The recitals aren’t part of the law, but should only guide the interpretation. Also, this is a directive. That means it directs the member states to make law, but has no direct effect, as such.