this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2023
56 points (81.8% liked)

Canada

7133 readers
550 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Regions


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social & 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
 

TechDirt’s Mike Masnick gets it exactly right in covering Canada’s C-18 bill:

If you believe in the open web, if you believe that you should never have to pay to link to something, if you believe that no one should have to pay to provide you a benefit, then you should support Meta’s stance here. Yes, it’s self-serving for Meta. Of course it is. But, even if it’s by accident, or a side-effect, it’s helping to defend the open web, against a ridiculous attack from an astoundingly ignorant and foolish set of Canadian politicians.

And just generally points out the huge holes in Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez understanding from the Power & Politics Interview.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] boris@news.cosocial.ca 0 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Sure. Except, if you read the article, this is about a fundamental discussion about paying to link to things. Should every post to Lemmy pay the website it links to?

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 year ago (6 children)

There's nuance to be had. Lemmy.ca isn't Meta or Google. It's one or two guys running a server in a non-profit capacity. No one here is making profit, we're just folks sharing links related to our shared interests. That is not true for Meta or Google. Those guys are making money hand over fist. These are not the same situations and there is no reason we have to treat them the same legally.

[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Doesn't that "first they came for etc etc" totally apply then? This will definitely lead to news sites targeting smaller social medias then federated social media.

[–] Kantalope@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

That anecdote ends with "Then they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak for me." The state doing stuff is not inherently bad. The state doing stuff that weakens those who protest injustice, and disperses networks of resistance is. Huge megacorporations will never care about anyone but themselves, because that's what they're structurally set up to do. I wouldn't worry too much about this legislation yet.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)