No matter how you try to twist it - a fee payable to another privaty entity is a fee, not a tax payable to the state.
Furthermore, a snippet is not at all required to share links - in your post you shared 5 links. None of them contained a snippet and hence none of them would be subject to any fee.
Not gonna go into the "fee" debate, just read the post you quoted again.
To clarify, though, when I use the word "snippet", I literally mean
a snippet, an excerpt, a piece of something, and not a rich-media snippet. If I'm talking about a rich-media snippet, I will mark it as that. So my point still stands - a snippet is required. Why?
Because if you're quoting something (= snippet), you have to give credits (obviously) - if you share the link (plain text link), then the link + quote fall under the "link tax". And that's inevitable unless you are solely creating your whole content. And that again is not how the internet, how social media and every component of that again works. Fair Use is a big player here.
If you don't quote something, just share a link, well, the plain link does not suit our current internet, see above or below. And you are not allowed to use rich-media snippets (e.g. auto title conversion) unless you are eligible for that.
Oh contrary, this is exactly how users tend to share links, they just copy & paste URLs.
What social media sites (as well as XenForo for example) did built on top of just sharing those links is code to fetch more data and display it in a nice way.
While this is, well, nice to have, it is not neccesary for information sharing.
Absolutely wrong. Usually people on social platforms (not only social media) without automatic link conversion post links with own descriptors (
this is a link to google) or they use an excerpt as I did above (
Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on copyright in the Digital Single Market) (yes, that actually was a snippet).
Writing your own titles is completely fine, but it's still a major throwback and changing the internet even without you quoting any content. And displaying plain text links is bad for everyone, not only users, but also the whole internet. SEO and usability suffer from that, as mentioned above, and I'm pretty sure there are more fields which would suffer from a "link tax" aswell.
Plus, usually shops don't just drop a link. That's unprofessional and makes reading texts and gathering information really hard. Same applies to blogs. "Further reading here", "quoted from here", "download here".
Again, this is just FUD. Nobody is going to stop links, all that is proposed is about snippents which are not required to share links.
No, it applies to quotes, which require credits, which require links, aswell, which is pretty the exact case described above (link to the proposal with a snippet from within the proposal). Sharing plain text or custom links is probably fine, but then again, that's not our current internet.
FUD
That quote just gives an example of what could be done, it no way does it stat it has to be done that way.
That quote is the definition of content filtering. User uploaded content which needs to be monitored and censored for whatever reason - that's what you call a content filter system. Here's how YT's content filter
currently works:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en
This is an example of how content filtering could work. And something like that would be required for many more.
While those articles 11) and 13) are not exactly great ideas (the whole idea of copyright simply does not work in an all-digital world and we are still trying to "fix" it instead of accepting that we basically have to give up on it), it's not doomsday for the web.
It is, unless you still haven't understood that simple quoting plus linking for giving proper credits already would fall under a "link tax". To top that, rich-media snippets are vital for our current internet experience.
Additionally, content getting auto-rejected because your platform does not hold the rights - even though your work currently would be totally legal under Fair Use - is a pretty stupid censorship. This kills independent and small YouTubers, Bloggers and so many more.
It's even a big problem for news media itself: only big companies would be able to afford the "link tax". This means good-bye opinion and discussion folks. This means RIP freedom of speech.
I don't know how anyone could not describe this as the doomsday of the web - it definitely is. This is not the internet we currently use, it's throwing us back many decades. And it's killing stuff which is pretty essential for a modern society.
