this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
63 points (93.2% liked)

Canada

7273 readers
518 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

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


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The NWT government and city of Yellowknife are describing in tweets, Instagram messages etc. how to search key evacuation information on CPAC and CBC. The broadcast carriers have a duty to carry emergency information, but Meta and X are blocking links.

While internet access is reportedly limited in Yellowknife, residents are finding this a barrier to getting current and accurate information. Even links to CBC radio are blocked.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Demonstrating what your response will be before the law goes into force seems like a good idea to me - the cost to Facebook is minimal and if people are going to change their minds, the earlier they do the easier it'll be to return to the status quo.

There's nothing above-the-law about this. The law sets the terms which Facebook must comply with if it wants to do business in Canada, but the law can't make Facebook keep doing business in Canada.

[–] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

But Facebook is doing business in Canada while refusing to be subject to Canadian law or courts while doing it.

It’s platforms are up in Canada, recruiting members, collecting and monetizing data on Canadians.

There have been court cases and orders in Canada where both Meta and Google have refused to comply with judicial decisions on the grounds that only California and US federal courts have jurisdiction over them.

The law in this case could require Meta, Google and X to carry emergency information and links to it without monetization, just as it does for private broadcasters and cable carriers.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There have been court cases and orders in Canada where both Meta and Google have refused to comply with judicial decisions on the grounds that only California and US federal courts have jurisdiction over them.

Got any links for that? That's pretty juicy.

Here is a Walrus feature on the story of a mother whose son went unexpectedly missing from the University of Toronto, and whose body was found washed up from Lake Ontario much later.

The family’s attempts to access her late son’s email and social media accounts from Google and Facebook went to court, and there was an order, but both refused to comply and insisted she take it through California courts (which she eventually did as part of a group case).

The mother’s efforts were also reported on by the Ottawa Citizen in several articles and a video, the CBC, and the Globe and Mail .

While this case raised significant questions of digital privacy and what should be the legal standard to access accounts posthumously in cases of missing and suspicious deaths, Facebook and Google fought the case on the grounds of jurisdiction and refused to comply with the Canadian court order.

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Google

There's not a good article for meta. In 2017 they were going to be fined about $9mil for misrepresentation of what data was collected and how it was used, but looks like it's been repealed this year.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't know nearly enough about those court cases, international law, or treaties between the USA and Canada to say anything specific. But my general point is that ultimately Canada has a military and Facebook doesn't. Facebook can't do anything on Canadian territory unless the Canadian government permits it, and that includes refusing to comply with judicial decisions.

Canada makes the rules. Facebook just chooses whether to accept them or to leave.

(Even if Facebook had no physical presence in Canada or in any country that had relevant treaties with Canada, Canada could still order its ISPs and payment processors to block Facebook. However, Facebook does have offices in Canada so this is a moot point.)

[–] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

True. But Meta hasn’t left as yet.

And there are users here suggesting that the Canadian government shouldn’t be attempting to legislate or regulate Meta.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"Should" can mean several different things in this context.

Is Canada capable of enforcing its legislation/regulation? Yes.

Does Canada have the moral right to legislate/regulate? Almost always yes. (I would say no if Canada just seized all of Facebook's property for no reason, but no one is proposing anything like that.)

Is it in practice a good idea for Canada to legislate/regulate? Maybe yes but maybe no, just like with any legislation/regulation.

Does it make sense for Canadians be surprised or offended if Facebook doesn't break the law but also doesn't cooperate with the intent of the legislation/regulation? Here's where I'm saying "no".

I don't consider myself evil, but If I were running Facebook, I would ask the experts working for me whether it was more profitable to pay Canadian news agencies or to stop letting Canadian people post links to news (keeping in mind that if Facebook pays Canadian news agencies, other countries will start demanding the same thing for their news agencies). The I would do whatever those experts said was going to be more profitable. My job wouldn't be to do what's best for Canada; it would be to do what's best for Facebook while complying with Canadian law. (In the same way that as a private citizen, I do what's best for me while complying with the law, not necessarily what's best for the government or for the nation.)

[–] el56@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@StillPaisleyCat @ArbitraryValue
Looks like they're following the law pretty well here.
In return for being asked to pay for making links, they no longer make links.
Sure, Meta and Google can be nasty on other grounds (and fighting C-11 isn't nasty), but they're being quite law-abiding here.
Flouting the law would be sharing links and refusing to pay.

[–] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is coming across like sealioning at this point.

THE LAW HAS NOT YET COME INTO EFFECT.

[–] Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

The law can come into effect whenever they want it to and the sites need to have their filtering systems ready and tested before that happens for them to be effective:

https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/08/the-bill-c-18-regulation-fake-out-setting-the-record-straight-on-when-bill-c-18-takes-effect-and-the-regulation-making-process/