Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Your analogy isn't quite right. More like this:

There are a bunch of stores in your area that offer free samples. You open your own store where people can tell you what stores they like, you go and grab the free sample, and then give the sample out at your store for free in exchange for there person's email and phone number and filing out a survey on which samples they like. Then you tell them where the sample came from and also sell their name and number and preferences to advertisers, some of whom are the stores you're getting samples from. Really hungry people will go to the store and pay for more, everyone else will be happy with the samples you gave them and walk away, maybe telling their friends how good it was. Your store gets hugely popular and has way more visitors every day than any of the local stores.

Now the government comes in and tells you that you have to pay for your samples, but regular people can still go to those stores and get their free samples.

But see, this is why I think Facebook was right here. If the stores really didn't want you doing this, they could just not give you a free sample. I'm not sure why the government needs to step in here at all. If you're providing a benefit to the other stores (more foot traffic) than why should they get paid? And if the traffic you are providing isn't good, why should they let you get the free samples?



> But see, this is why I think Facebook was right here. If the stores really didn't want you doing this, they could just not give you a free sample. I'm not sure why the government needs to step in here at all. If you're providing a benefit to the other stores (more foot traffic) than why should they get paid? And if the traffic you are providing isn't good, why should they let you get the free samples

Because it's neither here nor there. The traffic that trickles down to news sites is minimal because for a lot of people the title, photo and description are enough, but it's still more than the nothing they'd get if they block Google/Facebook indexing, because most people use the latter for news.


This analogy doesn't work because information is not a limited commodity. Once you've "printed" the news, its value drops to 0. This isn't the old days where you had to physically print 1,000,000 papers if you wanted the message to get to 1,000,000 people. You can "print" the news once now, and EVERYONE can see it.


No analogy is perfect. :)

But even still, it costs them money to research and write the news. Distribution is free but creation is not.


Collaborating with the free sample store gets them more business than if they don't and others do, but less than if no one did. So "If the stores really didn't want you doing this, they could just not give you a free sample" doesn't really work.


I thought news sites maintained their own pages and followers on Facebook. How does your analogy account for that?


That’s separate. I’m just talking about when a user posts a link to the news in their feed.


Maybe it is kind of like those people that hand out free samples at Costco, they are contracted by the product vendor, but some people think Costco should be paying for all those free samples because those samples draw traffic to their store.

Or something like that.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: