I don't think the law (from what I read of it) actually does target that though. Might as well cite it rather than refer to it in the abstract:
> The total number of the covered platform’s internet web
pages displayed or presented to California residents during the
month that link to, display, or present the eligible digital journalism
provider’s news articles, works of journalism, or other content, or
portions thereof.
Google can remove all the summaries and the law will apply just as much. In fact, from my reading of it, in other parts they are actually referring to "impressions" as the driver; that is it's explicitly the click through that they are asserting provides the value to Google, not the prevention of click through.
I get that emotionally, it's the prevention of click through that feels injurious, but it doesn't read as the spirit of this to me. I think possibly they know that if they didn't fully scope in links here Google would immediately just reduce it to raw links and this would reduce click through and it would hurt the intended beneficiaries of this more than it helps them.
From the article, the overall point seems to be on Google making significantly more money from news than the news providers, and the providers trying to find a better balance one way or another.
I think you're right on raw links also part of the target, but it's also in the context of Google providing an overview of the news and profiting from it, whether the links are clicked or not (Google's clearly covering all the spectrum of where money can be made on the pipeline, until it hits the target site)
> The total number of the covered platform’s internet web pages displayed or presented to California residents during the month that link to, display, or present the eligible digital journalism provider’s news articles, works of journalism, or other content, or portions thereof.
Google can remove all the summaries and the law will apply just as much. In fact, from my reading of it, in other parts they are actually referring to "impressions" as the driver; that is it's explicitly the click through that they are asserting provides the value to Google, not the prevention of click through.
I get that emotionally, it's the prevention of click through that feels injurious, but it doesn't read as the spirit of this to me. I think possibly they know that if they didn't fully scope in links here Google would immediately just reduce it to raw links and this would reduce click through and it would hurt the intended beneficiaries of this more than it helps them.