People aren’t seeing the forest for the trees here. Yeah, nobody likes Meta, but the larger impact of Bill C18 will be that sources like Google and other large aggregators will stop allowing links to legitimate news sources, and instead be flooded by blogspam and misinformation.
People won’t suddenly be navigating to The Toronto Star when they don’t get news on the latest updates in say the Corona virus in their immediate Google results, they’ll just continue to click on through to whatever sketchy source manages to SEO their way to the top instead.
This is a problem that the “legitimate news sources” created and they will need to ask to remove the laws they asked for in the first place if they want their viewership to come back.
Oh no. Millions of users are going to have to get their news from off facebook! What facebook stuff they do see is going to require they actually click through and view the website instead of reading a blurb and a headline so the site gets its deserved page views.
Well, they won’t be able to get their news from “news outlets” specifically linked on Facebook. They will still be able to get their news from other sources on Facebook.
Not sure if that’s actually an improvement though.
That law exist, actually already in its second version, it’s just a massiv shitshow. Leistungsschutzrecht. After a massive failure the first time in 2013 the second version ain’t any better. The law is needlessly vague, doesn’t clearly define who a publisher is or a charachter limit for free preview.
Strongly agreed. I think a lot of commenters in this thread are getting derailed by their feelings towards Meta. This is truly a dumb, dumb law and it’s extremely embarrassing that it even passed.
It’s not just Meta. No company wants to comply with this poorly thought out law, written by people who apparently have no idea how the internet works.
I think most of the people in the comments cheering this on haven’t read the bill. It requires them to pay news sites to link to the news site. Which is utterly insane. Linking to news sites is a win win. It means Facebook or Google gets to show relevant content and the news site gets users. This bill is going to hurt Canadian news sites because sites like Google and Facebook will avoid linking to them.
But where I see a small nugget of good intent in this law is in the fact that I’d be willing to wager a very large percentage of people read the blurb on Facebook, which summarizes the entire story, and never click over to the actual article, thereby robbing the news site of ad revenue.
This isn’t (supposed to) be about paying to post links. It’s about paying to summarize their content so that users don’t have to leave Facebook.
Right. It’s like if I stand at a street corner telling people to try out a local restaurant. And then the local restaurant says that I should be charged to recommend them. It makes no sense.
The preview Facebook or whoever is providing is the content the site literally explicitly provided for the purpose of linking to their website. It’s like the restaurant gave you a stack of flyers then tried to charge you for handing them out.
@aranym Can we get this globally?? Then perhaps more people would get their news from actual sources and not blindly trust a random link on a social platform.
Canadians won’t be getting their news from Facebook. Hopefully, it will drive people to actual news sites or aggregators where they can click and read the news and be informed.
No, not that. I guess I am looking for a solution to the headline reader that doesn’t read the article and then posts it. The kind of news of Facebook can be alarming and I don’t think it should be a news source.
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: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
This already happened in Australia, and was later amended. Google caved, Facebook partly caved.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56099523
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/facebook-ban-australia-1.5924076
According to bill C-18 lemmy.ca now owes CBC for the link you just posted.
People aren’t seeing the forest for the trees here. Yeah, nobody likes Meta, but the larger impact of Bill C18 will be that sources like Google and other large aggregators will stop allowing links to legitimate news sources, and instead be flooded by blogspam and misinformation.
People won’t suddenly be navigating to The Toronto Star when they don’t get news on the latest updates in say the Corona virus in their immediate Google results, they’ll just continue to click on through to whatever sketchy source manages to SEO their way to the top instead.
This is a problem that the “legitimate news sources” created and they will need to ask to remove the laws they asked for in the first place if they want their viewership to come back.
Oh no. Millions of users are going to have to get their news from off facebook! What facebook stuff they do see is going to require they actually click through and view the website instead of reading a blurb and a headline so the site gets its deserved page views.
Well, they won’t be able to get their news from “news outlets” specifically linked on Facebook. They will still be able to get their news from other sources on Facebook.
Not sure if that’s actually an improvement though.
let’s just end Meta, period. Thanks
That’d be the dream.
Facebook might actually be usable. Honestly jealous.
Also in Germany pls
That law exist, actually already in its second version, it’s just a massiv shitshow. Leistungsschutzrecht. After a massive failure the first time in 2013 the second version ain’t any better. The law is needlessly vague, doesn’t clearly define who a publisher is or a charachter limit for free preview.
I agree with all 3
Strongly agreed. I think a lot of commenters in this thread are getting derailed by their feelings towards Meta. This is truly a dumb, dumb law and it’s extremely embarrassing that it even passed.
It’s not just Meta. No company wants to comply with this poorly thought out law, written by people who apparently have no idea how the internet works.
I think most of the people in the comments cheering this on haven’t read the bill. It requires them to pay news sites to link to the news site. Which is utterly insane. Linking to news sites is a win win. It means Facebook or Google gets to show relevant content and the news site gets users. This bill is going to hurt Canadian news sites because sites like Google and Facebook will avoid linking to them.
I don’t disagree.
But where I see a small nugget of good intent in this law is in the fact that I’d be willing to wager a very large percentage of people read the blurb on Facebook, which summarizes the entire story, and never click over to the actual article, thereby robbing the news site of ad revenue.
This isn’t (supposed to) be about paying to post links. It’s about paying to summarize their content so that users don’t have to leave Facebook.
This will essentially break Google News and the like in Canada. It’s idiotic in so many ways.
Right. It’s like if I stand at a street corner telling people to try out a local restaurant. And then the local restaurant says that I should be charged to recommend them. It makes no sense.
I hate Meta, but this is just a dumb law.
It’s worse.
The preview Facebook or whoever is providing is the content the site literally explicitly provided for the purpose of linking to their website. It’s like the restaurant gave you a stack of flyers then tried to charge you for handing them out.
Is it actually a provided preview, or a preview they are generating.
I know part of the legit problem is when a website summarizes something and then people don’t click on the link, which reduces ad revenue.
But maybe there’s a provided summary (which should be fine) and the other way it gets summarized (which could arguably be deemed bad)
But making them pay to just link with is batshit insane.
@aranym Can we get this globally?? Then perhaps more people would get their news from actual sources and not blindly trust a random link on a social platform.
Isn’t this the opposite of what’s happening? Facebook posts can’t contain links to “actual sources” but can contain “random links”?
Honestly I just hope this backfires and less Canadians end up using Facebook, we’d definitely be much better off
I read that as you want Canadians off of FB because they’re spoiling it, lol.
I haven’t knowingly used a Facebook/Meta product in many years and my life is better for it.
Me too. Facebook is the craigslist of Social Networks. Hard to go more than two posts without running into a scam or a business.
I’m sure Canada will be better off for it.
How will Canada be better off?
Canadians won’t be getting their news from Facebook. Hopefully, it will drive people to actual news sites or aggregators where they can click and read the news and be informed.
But they can still get news from Facebook, they just won’t be getting it from “news outlets” specifically.
I wish it went further than that. That’s kinda sad.
“Further than that” meaning banning links in general?
No, not that. I guess I am looking for a solution to the headline reader that doesn’t read the article and then posts it. The kind of news of Facebook can be alarming and I don’t think it should be a news source.
Seriously, I have FB since 2008 or so, and I don’t care at all about this. I don’t have my news through FB…
Don’t threaten me with a good time, Mark.
Good. Bye Meta.
Works for me.