[savingGrace]

Is this a common thing? I initially feel outraged against Google for their practices, but then I see a comment about how this is just regurgitated news. Now I don't know whether to feel annoyed at a site that just regurgitates other site content or what. Then I start thinking about how the majority of news sites regurgitate AP/other journalists. Bad Google. Bad Wheelsjoint. Who am I supposed to feel sorry for at this point? Us, the consumers? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-19/toyota-cu...

[pvg]

You can make up a kind of hierarchy of 'content aggregation' at the top of which is stuff like actually licensing the content or providing additional analysis and commentary, always with attribution. At the bottom would be things like straight up copypasting content stripped of attribution or slightly rewording it, again without attribution and effectively claiming it as your own.

This looks like a case of one bottomfeeder attacking another bottomfeeder by means of Google's shoddy DMCA handling. I find it hard to pick out heroes or even sympathetic victims in this as well.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> I initially feel outraged against Google for their practices, but then I see a comment about how this is just regurgitated news.

These two issues developed independently.

One issue is that the site carries the (ostensibly low quality) content that Google rewards with search rankings.

The other is that Youtube/Google embraces copyright enforcement that heavily favors legacy copyright interests - and that enabled ContentID to become an easily/safely wielded instrument of censorship and abuse (a scenario the tech community repeatedly warned us about).

[jjk166]

We can simultaneously acknowledge regurgitated news as an issue and DMCA notices as the wrong tool for dealing with that issue.