Isn't this the same as the link tax? Except that the link tax clearly assigns the money to the news outlets who are actually producing the news people are reading on Google, whereas "every news org" is hard to quantify and discerning who should receive how much funding is a complicated question otherwise?
Is it possible people are opposed to the link tax not because of what it does, but the marketing they've been exposed to characterizing it as bad? Even the description "link tax" is oddly loaded, as "snippet tax" would be far more accurate, to that it applies to lifted content, not "literally the URL".
Is it possible people are opposed to the link tax not because of what it does, but the marketing they've been exposed to characterizing it as bad? Even the description "link tax" is oddly loaded, as "snippet tax" would be far more accurate, to that it applies to lifted content, not "literally the URL".