On one hand I wouldn't be against a law requiring big platforms to help disseminate information during an emergency. On the other when I read stories like this I think: "y'know on a nonprofit Federated model this wouldn't even be an issue."
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
7 points (100.0% liked)
Quark's
1108 readers
72 users here now
Come to Quark’s, Quark’s is Fun!
General off-topic chat for the crew of startrek.website. Trek-adjacent discussions, other sci-fi television, navigating the Fediverse, server meta (within reason), selling expired cases of Yamok sauce, it’s all fair game.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Evacuees from the devastating blazes threatening Yellowknife say the ongoing fight between Meta, the owner of Facebook, and Canada's federal government over who should pay for news has made it harder to spread life-saving information about the wildfires in the Northwest Territories.
Poitras says it's bad enough having to handle the logistics of getting out in a hurry and worrying about what might happen to her home town while she's gone, but the situation has been made worse by the ongoing fight between Big Tech and the Canadian government over who should pay for news.
The debate over Bill C-18, known as the Online News Act, may be an academic one in many parts of Canada, but not in the North, where people are dealing with an unfolding natural disaster while suddenly being unable to use one of the most popular communication platforms to share information about wildfire locations and evacuation plans.
A live news conference covered by Cabin Radio and CBC on Wednesday evening announced the evacuation of Yellowknife, but it wasn't shareable on Facebook, prompting users like Poitras and others to try to get around the block by posting screengrabs of information instead of direct links.
"People in Canada are able to use Facebook and Instagram to connect to their communities and access reputable information, including content from official government agencies, emergency services and non-governmental organisations," said Meta spokesperson David Troya-Alvarez.
She says the world is watching the Canadian dispute closely, as numerous other jurisdictions have similar laws planned, and Meta has clearly "decided to use Canada as a bit of a test population to try this out and see how far they can force the government to go before perhaps keeping or coming to the bargaining table.
The original article contains 1,512 words, the summary contains 275 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Just a question, not a judgement. Meta states, " ... that government sites and other sources that disseminate information aren't subject to the ban." Is it that news sites have more up-to-date and relevant information than government sites?
There are blocking public, government funded broadcasters that are required to carry public information in emergencies.
This includes CBC which has radio, internet radio and a website as well as CPAC Canada that is a funded by a consortium of cable companies as part of their licensing.
In NWT, many people rely on a local station Cabin Radio as their key source of information. It’s now listed as closed by the territorial government had been asking people to listen to it as a more reliable source of evacuation guidance than Facebook.
Thanks for the clarification.
I think that Meta and Twitter playing games with people's lives is loathsome. Meta and Twitter could have allowed for news links during the emergency. The money cost would be negligible for Meta, but be possibly lifesaving for people in the area of the emergency. But, Meta seemingly isn't about people, outside of using them as commodities. Twitter (I'm not playing the name game with that one) is continuing its slide into whatever self-made miasma awaits it. I'm not surprised by either platform's behavior. Just very disappointed.
Hate to yell but THE LEGISLATION HAS NOT COME INTO FORCE.
There would be ZERO cost to Meta, and they would continue to make as revenue off public broadcaster’s content.
It seems to be need to said repeatedly that Meta has acted preemptively, while the regulations necessary to operationalize the legislation haven’t even been put out for formal public consultation in the Canada Gazette. The Gazetting process will be an opportunity for Meta, Google and others to again make their case about the issues.
What? Meta and its ilk pulled this just to be petty? I don't understand how behavior like this doesn't result in an immediate exodus from those platforms. At least as fast as is possible.
Not sure I would quite call it petty, but Meta is determined to use whatever market power it has to make sure no government outside the US has jurisdiction.
As they did in Australia, they are trying to put pressure on the national government to back down. They’re a bad actor in the antitrust sense and seem to be determined to demonstrate that.
Which is exactly why there is a strong case that only governments can set the ground rules for platforms like Meta’s, and should.
While local news sources, dependent on Meta, have mixed views on the legislation, there’s a possibility that this behaviour may only serve to motivate Canada’s Parliament to pass further legislation to require internet social media platforms to disseminate and link through news and information during public emergencies in the same way private broadcasters and cable carriers already are.