LLaMA2 isn't “Open Source” – and why it doesn't matter

Re:LLaMA2 isn't “Open Source” – and why it doesn't matter by pyrale on Friday July 21, 2023 @03:26PM (#36818358)

> Their basic idea is to direct people to your content.

This is less and less true, as evidenced by the progression of 0-click searchs.

> There are countries where content companies didn't like what Google does: Google took them out of the index -> suddenly they where ok with it again so that Google put them in again.

This story screams antitrust.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LLaMA2 isn't “Open Source” – and why it doesn't matter by mschuster91 on Friday July 21, 2023 @06:53PM (#36821061)

> This story screams antitrust.

It does but the complainers are usually tabloid crap pushers whom no one in power really supports.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LLaMA2 isn't “Open Source” – and why it doesn't matter by panzi on Saturday July 22, 2023 @11:29AM (#36827052)

I over-simplified. It's about Google News. The news paper companies managed to lobby for a law that requires search providers to pay money to the news papers they link to (or for the tiny excerpt they show in the search results). So Google said they will discontinue Google News in those countries. Suddenly the news papers gave Google a free license to link to them. (still simplified story)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LLaMA2 isn't “Open Source” – and why it doesn't matter by account42 on Monday July 24, 2023 @05:15AM (#36844969)

> This story screams antitrust.

You're right, the number of news publishers that share a common owner is something that should be of concern to antitrust enforcers.

[ Parent | on HN ]