this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
106 points (96.5% liked)

Canada

7185 readers
513 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 312@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] moody@lemmings.world 6 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Phyrin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] 312@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

(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?

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Nomecks@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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?

[–] Phyrin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Oh no offense taken, I also don’t get it. Like you said, I think amounts to forcing private companies to subsidize an industry

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

It's more about forcing private companies to pay for the use of other private companies work.

[–] ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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.