Lol not a fan of Facebook or Meta but forcing any entity to provide a service they don’t want to provide especially if it’s not being done in a discriminatory way seems dubious. Legacy media are reaping what hath been sown.
Meta did that. Meta needs to be investigated. This is good news. Their support of platforming fascists should automatically cause them to not be allowed in Canada.
The news existed before facebook and will continue to exist after facebook. Just go to the news sites and read your news. I quit both facebook and twitter over 6 years ago but I have never quit reading the news… facebook and twitter are not the news… Also their support of nazis and fascists should preclude them from even being allowed in Canada.
I really don’t understand the people who (on an open source social media platform of all places!) rush to defend Meta/Facebook on bill C-18. Any action taken against Facebook’s power in society, no matter how flawed, is inherently good.
Anyway, I don’t think this law would reduce Meta’s power if the company cooperated, because if Meta only falls under the law if it has power then news organizations have an incentive to make sure it keeps enough power to keep the law applicable and keep getting them paid.
I really don’t understand the people who rush to defend Meta/Facebook on bill C-18.
Because it is what is most likely to provoke a reaction? Like all internet comments, the words aren’t grounded in anything. They are crafted such that they attempt to get something back in return (a reply, a vote, etc.) If you want to learn what people really think, you need to find a way into their private journal (without them knowing, else you will influence the activity). As soon as other people become involved, the motivations change.
(on an open source social media platform of all places!)
Well, if Lemmy ever becomes popular, it too will become subject to the same law. Open source especially doesn’t like such encumberments. This surprises you, why?
No it wouldn’t become subject to the same law. A new and different law would be required. But that’s wildly hypothetical, given the differences between an open distributed system and a massive private corporation.
Also, human behaviour and social interactions are seldom quite so transactional.
Bill C-18 clearly includes Lemmy in theory, only excluding it by virtue of it not being considered dominant. That could change some day should it ever become popular.
As much as humans don’t like to admit it, human behaviour is always perfectly transactional.
Please take this as friendly advice: you appear to be describing a dangerous view of social relationships and this could get you in some potentially very serious trouble with the people around you. Please, do not treat your relationships with other people as transactional.
If someone is going to cause trouble because of some words someone said, they are mentally unwell and it is best to get that out in the open so they can receive the help they need.
Everything is transactional. Even trying to not be transactional towards another because it makes you feel good that you are not being transactional is actually transactional. Those good feelings the other person gave you are payment for your efforts.
What’s the risk? I get murdered by a madman because I uttered some insignificant words they weren’t able to process appropriately? If that’s the risk, I should be talking the police, not a psychologist or psychotherapist.
I am so tired of the competition bureau, they are so fucking useless. Can’t they investigate the literal cartels we have that are sucking all of our money with outrageous prices? Like the same cartels that everyone has to use because they are essential in 2023? Groceries and telecoms?
Lol, what do they expect to be done about this? Is the government supposed to force Facebook to show their content, yet also pay to do it? I hate Facebook but I’m so glad they’re doing this because link taxes are fucking stupid.
But even setting aside the question of whether link taxes are a good idea, I don’t understand why they’re making a – what to me sounds dubious – antitrust argument. It seems like a simply bizarre angle.
If the Canadian government wants news aggregators to pay a percentage of income to news companies, I would assume that they can just tax news aggregators – not per link to Canadian news source, but for operating in a market at all – take the money and then subsidize Canadian news sources. It may or may not be a good idea economically, but it seems like it’d be on considerably firmer footing than trying to use antitrust law to bludgeon news aggregators into taking actions that would trigger a link tax by aggregating Canadian news sources.
This is the real problem. Corporate taxes are frighteningly low and Canada can no longer afford to subsidize domestic industries out of corporate tax revenue.
Yeah, I am not Canadian so I’m sure there’s some information/nuance I don’t understand here, but from what I can tell from looking at a few articles from different sources:
Canadian government passes a law that would require Facebook to pay and/or share ad revenue for every link out (posted by the media outlet, not by Facebook) to an external news website
Facebook says they don’t want to do that, and will stop showing news links to comply with the law
Canadian government says “no not like that” and now wants to force them to allow links to news outlets, which de facto forces them to pay/share revenue with those media outlets
Like I said, I’m assuming there may be something I’m missing here, so please any kind Canadians who can help fill in the blanks would be appreciated
You’ve got the just of it. Their argument is that meta benefits as the post w/ the the link and preview is content they use in their feed to keep users engaged. Presumably in said feed they’d also insert ads.
This would also apply to any user posting a link to an article, not just the news agencies.
I would hope it’s on the basis of the news sites not actually receiving any user engagement due to users summarizing the article and therefore allowing people to “read” it without reading it.
The other option is they want news companies to have their cake and eat it too. Apparently, that worked out for Australia though—albeit in an asinine and behind-closed-doors sort of way.
What’s the problem with private companies subsidizing an industry? They’re taking advantage of our population to make money and often offshoring profits to avoid paying taxes.
I do believe some Canadian industries should be subsidized by private interests because they’re just selling our own resources back to us, and they should pay for the privilege (while still receiving some profits). Telecom, utilities, energy, farms over certain capacities etc.
News Probaby shouldn’t be one. I’m more than happy with government funded news so long as its independent of government and held to a higher standard than “entertainment” like we have with our neighbours to the south. This forces private news to compete with a competent news source, and it’s not like the business model for news has really changed by much, selling ad space next to information, or offering subscriptions is as old as information sharing.
Because most people don’t click, they just read the summary of the article in their feed. They’re claiming that aggregators don’t share revenue from summarized articles.
Yet all the major news sites I checked provided Open Graph content.
In case you don’t know, Open Graph was created by Facebook to give publishers control over what information is displayed on Facebook when a news resource is introduced into their system.
If you don’t want Facebook to display that content, knowing it means you won’t see the traffic, why explicitly provide and denote it for their use? Open Graph content isn’t naturally occurring. These news companies are going out of their way to tell Facebook exactly what they want shown.
Is this simply a case of the top brass spending too much time in Ottawa and not enough time talking to the technical people?
It’s not the government that wants to force them, it’s the media outlets that lobbied for this law in the first place that are trying to claw back a win after they called a bluff and lost.
Yes, the government is also upset about the outcome despite being warned about it beforehand, but they know that Facebook hasn’t broken any laws.
Isn’t this a little bit like a shit flavoured candy maker, suing Walmart to force them to sell their shit flavoured candy? What grounds do they have to force Facebook to have anything to do with them?
Not really a good analogy because Walmart mostly purchases goods to resell them1, while Facebook does not purchase news. Even so, if Walmart suddenly stopped selling Canadian goods it could lead to a lawsuit too. CBC is not trying to force Facebook to accept CBC links, it’s about all Canadian outlets.
1 well, except on their 3rd party marketplace, but we all know this is not what the analogy is talking about
This is really pretty sad coming from the CBC, and highlights how badly they’ve lost the plot on social media.
The CBC’s always been a relatively early adopter of digital technologies, including social media, as they chase their mandate to offer as easy access as possible to Canadians. But somewhere in there, they went from being on social media to – like seemingly all of mainstream journalism today – becoming reliant on social media. They baked Facebook and Twitter into their actual operating strategies. Now, they’ve found themselves feeling mistreated by the tools they internalized, and seemingly unwilling to just let. The fuck. Go.
Facebook doesn’t need news media, but the news media doesn’t need Facebook, either. None of this would be happening right now if Facebook and Twitter were major generators of ad revenue for the media companies. Maybe they were, at one point in time, and they’ve since felt the pinch of enshitification, but that means the paradigm has shifted, and it’s time for them to get up off of their fucking knees and do something else.
Mastodon/Firefish/Akkoma are right there. RSS still exists. Some of these outlets are owned by absolutely massive media conglomorates that are, among other things, ISPs serving millions. They have the resources to change the way Canadians actually use the internet. They don’t need Facebook and Twitter.
I’d love to live in a world where you’re right, but can you point out any evidence that ditching social media and favouring RSS would work out well for the CBC? Like any similar media company (in scope or size) that had a successful experiment?
They don’t need Facebook and Twitter. […] They’re just addicted to them.
What is the difference? What does addiction really mean in this context?
“Meta’s practices are clearly designed to discipline Canadian news companies, prevent them from participating in and accessing the advertising market, and significantly reduce their visibility to Canadians on social media channels,” the CBC said in a joint statement with the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and News Media Canada, a trade organization that represents newspapers.
Isn’t the argument for C-18 that the advertising market isn’t doing the news organizations much good anyway?
And as far as their visibility on social media channels, the news organization created this problem for themselves in the first place by encouraging people to share their work on social media; if they’d focused on making sure people know where to find them instead of posting all their work maybe their sites would be getting more traffic. They tried a business strategy, it didn’t work out, and now instead of coming up with a better strategy they’re trying to force Meta and Google to give them money and make the bad strategy work.
Canadians expect tech giants to follow the law in our country.
The law says Meta and Google have to pay to carry news; it doesn’t say they have to carry news. Maybe the law should have been written without that gaping hole?
I think it’s worth noting that news organizations are struggling not because less people are reading news but rather because advertising is so cheap now. When newspapers were the only advertising source they could charge high prices. Then TV came out which hurt them, but this was balanced by TV spending some money on journalism. Now with the internet the prices newspapers can charge for advertising is sooo much less than they could previously.
Anyway, I think it’s worth noting this because there’s this narrative that news organizations helped build up social media (and maybe deserve a cut). I mean really, how many people decided to make an Instagram account or Facebook account because CBC happened to have a page they could follow? Of the people I know who use Facebook or Instagram, none use it for news. This also means that utilizing social media to drive traffic may still be a good strategy - if the government hadn’t effectively blocked that.
It’s a lose lose battle for News companies. You asked for it buddy. I’d feel sorry for you if you weren’t pushing some low-tier garbage “journalism” and propaganda for decades.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Man, I hate Meta with a passion, but it’s hilarious watching the slow motion train wreck this amateur-hour legislation has become.
Lol not a fan of Facebook or Meta but forcing any entity to provide a service they don’t want to provide especially if it’s not being done in a discriminatory way seems dubious. Legacy media are reaping what hath been sown.
Meta leaving Canada entirely would be a win in my books as we see the influence of weaponized stupidity crossing the border.
Throw the first punch then Act like you are the victim.
Meta did that. Meta needs to be investigated. This is good news. Their support of platforming fascists should automatically cause them to not be allowed in Canada.
The news existed before facebook and will continue to exist after facebook. Just go to the news sites and read your news. I quit both facebook and twitter over 6 years ago but I have never quit reading the news… facebook and twitter are not the news… Also their support of nazis and fascists should preclude them from even being allowed in Canada.
I really don’t understand the people who (on an open source social media platform of all places!) rush to defend Meta/Facebook on bill C-18. Any action taken against Facebook’s power in society, no matter how flawed, is inherently good.
This seems relevant: My Distaste For Your Solution Does Not Mean Disregard For The Problem
Anyway, I don’t think this law would reduce Meta’s power if the company cooperated, because if Meta only falls under the law if it has power then news organizations have an incentive to make sure it keeps enough power to keep the law applicable and keep getting them paid.
Because it is what is most likely to provoke a reaction? Like all internet comments, the words aren’t grounded in anything. They are crafted such that they attempt to get something back in return (a reply, a vote, etc.) If you want to learn what people really think, you need to find a way into their private journal (without them knowing, else you will influence the activity). As soon as other people become involved, the motivations change.
Well, if Lemmy ever becomes popular, it too will become subject to the same law. Open source especially doesn’t like such encumberments. This surprises you, why?
No it wouldn’t become subject to the same law. A new and different law would be required. But that’s wildly hypothetical, given the differences between an open distributed system and a massive private corporation.
Also, human behaviour and social interactions are seldom quite so transactional.
Bill C-18 clearly includes Lemmy in theory, only excluding it by virtue of it not being considered dominant. That could change some day should it ever become popular.
As much as humans don’t like to admit it, human behaviour is always perfectly transactional.
Please take this as friendly advice: you appear to be describing a dangerous view of social relationships and this could get you in some potentially very serious trouble with the people around you. Please, do not treat your relationships with other people as transactional.
If someone is going to cause trouble because of some words someone said, they are mentally unwell and it is best to get that out in the open so they can receive the help they need.
Everything is transactional. Even trying to not be transactional towards another because it makes you feel good that you are not being transactional is actually transactional. Those good feelings the other person gave you are payment for your efforts.
Yes, you might want to speak to a psychologist or psychotherapist before you do something that you may later come to regret.
What’s the risk? I get murdered by a madman because I uttered some insignificant words they weren’t able to process appropriately? If that’s the risk, I should be talking the police, not a psychologist or psychotherapist.
I am so tired of the competition bureau, they are so fucking useless. Can’t they investigate the literal cartels we have that are sucking all of our money with outrageous prices? Like the same cartels that everyone has to use because they are essential in 2023? Groceries and telecoms?
Lol, what do they expect to be done about this? Is the government supposed to force Facebook to show their content, yet also pay to do it? I hate Facebook but I’m so glad they’re doing this because link taxes are fucking stupid.
I don’t like the idea of link taxes myself.
But even setting aside the question of whether link taxes are a good idea, I don’t understand why they’re making a – what to me sounds dubious – antitrust argument. It seems like a simply bizarre angle.
If the Canadian government wants news aggregators to pay a percentage of income to news companies, I would assume that they can just tax news aggregators – not per link to Canadian news source, but for operating in a market at all – take the money and then subsidize Canadian news sources. It may or may not be a good idea economically, but it seems like it’d be on considerably firmer footing than trying to use antitrust law to bludgeon news aggregators into taking actions that would trigger a link tax by aggregating Canadian news sources.
This is the real problem. Corporate taxes are frighteningly low and Canada can no longer afford to subsidize domestic industries out of corporate tax revenue.
I think you’re onto something here.
Yeah, I am not Canadian so I’m sure there’s some information/nuance I don’t understand here, but from what I can tell from looking at a few articles from different sources:
Canadian government passes a law that would require Facebook to pay and/or share ad revenue for every link out (posted by the media outlet, not by Facebook) to an external news website
Facebook says they don’t want to do that, and will stop showing news links to comply with the law
Canadian government says “no not like that” and now wants to force them to allow links to news outlets, which de facto forces them to pay/share revenue with those media outlets
Like I said, I’m assuming there may be something I’m missing here, so please any kind Canadians who can help fill in the blanks would be appreciated
You’ve got the just of it. Their argument is that meta benefits as the post w/ the the link and preview is content they use in their feed to keep users engaged. Presumably in said feed they’d also insert ads.
This would also apply to any user posting a link to an article, not just the news agencies.
(Not arguing with you, just with the concept of the bill)
Doesn’t the news outlet benefit from the traffic and clicks generated from that user engagement?
What’s the government’s rationale for social media platforms to subsidize media outlets monetarily in addition to driving people to their content?
I would hope it’s on the basis of the news sites not actually receiving any user engagement due to users summarizing the article and therefore allowing people to “read” it without reading it.
The other option is they want news companies to have their cake and eat it too. Apparently, that worked out for Australia though—albeit in an asinine and behind-closed-doors sort of way.
Oh no offense taken, I also don’t get it. Like you said, I think amounts to forcing private companies to subsidize an industry
What’s the problem with private companies subsidizing an industry? They’re taking advantage of our population to make money and often offshoring profits to avoid paying taxes.
It’s more about forcing private companies to pay for the use of other private companies work.
I do believe some Canadian industries should be subsidized by private interests because they’re just selling our own resources back to us, and they should pay for the privilege (while still receiving some profits). Telecom, utilities, energy, farms over certain capacities etc.
News Probaby shouldn’t be one. I’m more than happy with government funded news so long as its independent of government and held to a higher standard than “entertainment” like we have with our neighbours to the south. This forces private news to compete with a competent news source, and it’s not like the business model for news has really changed by much, selling ad space next to information, or offering subscriptions is as old as information sharing.
Because most people don’t click, they just read the summary of the article in their feed. They’re claiming that aggregators don’t share revenue from summarized articles.
Yet all the major news sites I checked provided Open Graph content.
In case you don’t know, Open Graph was created by Facebook to give publishers control over what information is displayed on Facebook when a news resource is introduced into their system.
If you don’t want Facebook to display that content, knowing it means you won’t see the traffic, why explicitly provide and denote it for their use? Open Graph content isn’t naturally occurring. These news companies are going out of their way to tell Facebook exactly what they want shown.
Is this simply a case of the top brass spending too much time in Ottawa and not enough time talking to the technical people?
It’s not the government that wants to force them, it’s the media outlets that lobbied for this law in the first place that are trying to claw back a win after they called a bluff and lost.
Yes, the government is also upset about the outcome despite being warned about it beforehand, but they know that Facebook hasn’t broken any laws.
Isn’t this a little bit like a shit flavoured candy maker, suing Walmart to force them to sell their shit flavoured candy? What grounds do they have to force Facebook to have anything to do with them?
Not really a good analogy because Walmart mostly purchases goods to resell them1, while Facebook does not purchase news. Even so, if Walmart suddenly stopped selling Canadian goods it could lead to a lawsuit too. CBC is not trying to force Facebook to accept CBC links, it’s about all Canadian outlets.
1 well, except on their 3rd party marketplace, but we all know this is not what the analogy is talking about
This is really pretty sad coming from the CBC, and highlights how badly they’ve lost the plot on social media.
The CBC’s always been a relatively early adopter of digital technologies, including social media, as they chase their mandate to offer as easy access as possible to Canadians. But somewhere in there, they went from being on social media to – like seemingly all of mainstream journalism today – becoming reliant on social media. They baked Facebook and Twitter into their actual operating strategies. Now, they’ve found themselves feeling mistreated by the tools they internalized, and seemingly unwilling to just let. The fuck. Go.
Facebook doesn’t need news media, but the news media doesn’t need Facebook, either. None of this would be happening right now if Facebook and Twitter were major generators of ad revenue for the media companies. Maybe they were, at one point in time, and they’ve since felt the pinch of enshitification, but that means the paradigm has shifted, and it’s time for them to get up off of their fucking knees and do something else.
Mastodon/Firefish/Akkoma are right there. RSS still exists. Some of these outlets are owned by absolutely massive media conglomorates that are, among other things, ISPs serving millions. They have the resources to change the way Canadians actually use the internet. They don’t need Facebook and Twitter.
They’re just addicted to them.
Forcing companies like meta to be responsible and accountable is still a good thing.
Did… Did I say it wasn’t?
What I said – implicitly – was that media companies should participate in that effort by blacklisting companies like Meta.
And it’s up to the individual media company to make that decision.
Meta making that decision for them is potentially anticompetitive. We’ll have to wait and see I guess
I’d love to live in a world where you’re right, but can you point out any evidence that ditching social media and favouring RSS would work out well for the CBC? Like any similar media company (in scope or size) that had a successful experiment?
What is the difference? What does addiction really mean in this context?
I dont want news on facebook. I signed up for facebook to keep up with friends, not corporations.
Isn’t the argument for C-18 that the advertising market isn’t doing the news organizations much good anyway?
And as far as their visibility on social media channels, the news organization created this problem for themselves in the first place by encouraging people to share their work on social media; if they’d focused on making sure people know where to find them instead of posting all their work maybe their sites would be getting more traffic. They tried a business strategy, it didn’t work out, and now instead of coming up with a better strategy they’re trying to force Meta and Google to give them money and make the bad strategy work.
The law says Meta and Google have to pay to carry news; it doesn’t say they have to carry news. Maybe the law should have been written without that gaping hole?
The officially stated reason for Bill C-18 is to give news organizations in Canada balanced negotiating power with entities like Facebook.
Which, I guess, was successful. Facebook pushed away from the bargaining table as it no longer feels like it holds dominance over it.
But now the news companies are saying that’s not good enough. They want more power than Facebook has.
Canadian news companies: Lobbies government to mandate royalties for news being shared on social media platforms.
Social media platforms: Stops sharing the news created by Canadian news companies.
Canadian news companies:
I think it’s worth noting that news organizations are struggling not because less people are reading news but rather because advertising is so cheap now. When newspapers were the only advertising source they could charge high prices. Then TV came out which hurt them, but this was balanced by TV spending some money on journalism. Now with the internet the prices newspapers can charge for advertising is sooo much less than they could previously.
Anyway, I think it’s worth noting this because there’s this narrative that news organizations helped build up social media (and maybe deserve a cut). I mean really, how many people decided to make an Instagram account or Facebook account because CBC happened to have a page they could follow? Of the people I know who use Facebook or Instagram, none use it for news. This also means that utilizing social media to drive traffic may still be a good strategy - if the government hadn’t effectively blocked that.
It’s a lose lose battle for News companies. You asked for it buddy. I’d feel sorry for you if you weren’t pushing some low-tier garbage “journalism” and propaganda for decades.
deleted by creator
There is a word for forcing someone to work for you for free.
That word only applies to people, not corporations.