I was recently looking into this myself, and I saw someone recommend FileFlows, but it was recommended for ease of setup/use, not because it’s open source. Figured I’d mention it, but note that I haven’t had a chance to check it out yet.

Yeah, it’s the distinction between “anonymous” and “private”.

It’s almost like capitalism is a problem.

The issue is what mechanism could be used to force Google to pay, but also prevents Google from saying “yeah, we just won’t provide any links to those sites at all”.

Are they going to force Google to index those sites against their will? If so, how? Even if they could, would you really want that? Will it be just as cool for Russia to force Google to index whatever it wants, too? Are they just going to take money from Google no matter what, and give it to the news sites, even if Google isn’t indexing them?

Sorry for the delayed response. I didn’t see a notification.

Google is pointing out that the news sites need google more than google needs the news sites.

This sort of thing happens every once in a while; some country’s news organizations think that google should have to pay them for the privilege of helping people find their sites. Google responds by blacklisting news sites from that country. The news sites suffer more than google does, and they reverse the decision.

Your cynicism isn’t properly calibrated.

If you look at the viewpoint of a CEO, you’ll see that they would be chomping at the bit to get rid of as many high paying technical or administrative roles as they can; it’s not like that extra money is going to flow down the chain.

Now, if there were a threat of LLMs replacing a management position, that would be a different story.

Edit: Apparently my reading comprehension is what needs calibrating. Turns out I agree! My bad.