WSJ Ends Google Users' Free Ride, Then Fades in Search Results

Re:WSJ Ends Google Users' Free Ride, Then Fades in Search Re... by lordCarbonFiber on Monday June 05, 2017 @04:24PM (#14491510)

The problem is that is false. Ads (and the click bait they encourage) certainly is a monetization strategy; but to suggest it's either free rubish or paywalled quality is patently false. Ignoring completely state sponsored media (NPR, BBC, etc), groups like News Deeply [0] offer proof by contradiction to your assumption.

Killing search isn't going to add more "real", "substantial" content online.

[0] https://www.newsdeeply.com/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:WSJ Ends Google Users' Free Ride, Then Fades in Search Re... by dragonwriter on Tuesday June 06, 2017 @02:43AM (#14495253)

NPR isn't anywhere close to "completely state sponsored media"; NPR gets basically no direct government funding, what it does get is indirect through its member stations, who get less from government than from corporate sponsors, and less from sponsors than listener donations.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:WSJ Ends Google Users' Free Ride, Then Fades in Search Re... by omegaworks on Monday June 05, 2017 @04:43PM (#14491774)

Please don't frame your response as a logical argument while ignoring the ambiguity introduced by your use of "that" to refer to my entire statement.

Without good search, there's a discovery problem. How will people find quality content easily? Where'd you get "killing search?" Search clearly provides value.

[ Parent | on HN ]