-
jbenton Once again, my claim isn't that making money with web content is an issue. It's a lack of reciprocity. Email clients are a good example of how you're misinterpreting my argument here. The issue isn't the sending user, it's a double standard of the application in protocols...Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +1 🙂
-
jbenton Imagine an Email client receives and sends emails via an open protocol but has a special feature set & network only available to paying users of that email client. Saaaay, if AMP Email was a feature only available to paying GMail users. That would deteriorate the open protocols.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -2 🙁
-
jbenton Addressable Content on the web is a protocol, one extended by RSS. A commonly agreed upon format of a string will open up a thing in a browser. Any browser can use it. Any client can consume it...Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +1 🙂
-
jbenton The issue isn't consuming the content alone. It is creating a two-tier system in which a client consumes publicly addressable web content with URLs that works in browsers, but has an upper tier where the content does not return URLs and parsable content to the web...Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -2 🙁
-
jbenton Beyond the question of what editorial at WP will do (which we both know is something I explicitly have nothing to do with), a publisher app is not displaying whole works by other publishers and should fall under different consideration.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood 0
-
jbenton On the other hand, we would indeed consider it highly inappropriate if The New York Times started showing the whole content of LA Times stories inside a web view in the NYT app without a licensing agreement, no?On twitter.com
Mood -2 🙁
-
jbenton And by the same measure, if Google started up an internal newsroom and placed Google Newsroom Journalism in a special place in Google News and asked people to pay for it, we'd both have a problem with that too, right?Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -3 🙁
-
jbenton Perhaps neither of those things break the assigned protocols of legal matters or the open web, but they would be problems we should consider that would necessitate rules and additional license expansion to cover.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood 0
-
jbenton I think for compensation & fair even-handed competition to exist within the open web, we have mechanical and assumed rules. The assumed rules some aim to disrespect. I don't think Luminary broke the mechanical rules, but it broke the unspoken assumptions of how these systems workPermalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -2 🙁
-
jbenton An unspoken rule is one does not whole re-publish another creators' content to create a fertile ground to sell your own content without extending the same opportunity to others via open content. Otherwise, it creates a system in which advantage accrues to a single controller.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +6 🙂
-
jbenton I think that is a fair assumption to have of systems which consume and transact on the open web and I think it is fair for creators who see a platform attempting to integrate purposes to break that rule as worth blocking.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +5 🙂