People are going full retard on this X thing
this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
405 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
59566 readers
4839 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
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.
They want to sell the cake and eat it too..
Or they want to sell the cake and get paid for it.
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.
Mind that news media don't pay
That's exactly what (maybe) violates the law.
You think people should pay X to link to tweets? Or generally for quotes?
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.
Misunderstanding. The news media is suing X. I pointed out what news media does without paying.
It should only show the title and the link imo.
That's infringement in Europe, which makes it effectively a link tax.
Yeah, it's the same thing that lets us have a site like lemmy
Huh? How you mean?
Oh, he's saying that snippet view lets us have sites like lemmy. I didn't get how cracking down on that would help lemmy.
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.
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.
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!"
on one hand fuck Twitter, but on the other... Link previews never should be considered copyright infringement.
Make a paywall and see your support drop. Their fuck up for fucking up their html tags
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.
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.
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.
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.
The bigger evil
Do they want to get France kicked out of NATO?