158

CBC Says Canada Is “Canary In The Coal Mine” As The Pubcaster Predicts Meta and Alphabet Will Block News Content In Other Countries (deadline.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by ValueSubtracted@startrek.website to c/canada@lemmy.ca

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 46 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

The group of people that came up with this bill and it's wording have no idea how the internet works. The idea that a site needs to pay to provide a link to another site is not well though out. The internet is built on links.

Canadian news companies shot themselves in the foot here. They want social media site to not summarize their news articles (this keeps users on the social media site). At the same time news companies also don't want social media site to link to the news article (this directs users to the news site).

When news articles are summarized by social media sites it means that a individual can read the news article without going to a news site directly, thus a social media site gains financial with ad revenue directly from "content" it did not create.

What news sites wanted is user come to their sites directly to generate ad revenue on their platform. So a link would help users find this "content" and benefits news sites. Though news companies now also want to double dip and request that social site pay news companies for the link to their site.

In short, Canadian news companies wanted their cake and eat it too.

[-] GameGod@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago

You actually made the argument for the bill, and then twisted it to justify Facebook and Google's domination of the ad market.

The specific problem they're solving is that that there's a majority of Facebook users who get their news from Facebook, and probably the majority of those users don't actually click through, so the news organizations get no money. Facebook and their users are benefitting from getting headlines, but the companies incurring all the costs to generate those headlines are getting too little money from that to sustain themselves. This is why this bill has to exist and why it's necessary to protect Canadian news organizations.

[-] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago

That is a stupid argument. I agree about the summary part, but paying even for just a link is idiotic. If someone asks me for the directions to a restaurant, I don't have to pay the restaurant for giving directions to it. If they did ask for cash for this, I'd simply stop recommending the restaurant. I have no duty to them, and they have no right to me.

Facebook is doing the same thing. You want payment even if I only point people to you? Then I will simply stop pointing people to you. I owe you nothing. If I didn't provide a summary but the people still don't click through, then maybe your content is shit and people aren't interested. Why should I have to pay to protect you from that?

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

The analogy makes no sense lol you’re not a content aggregator and people don’t eat directions.

News websites produce content that generates value for social networks. If that value is worth paying for having that content (the link tax) is a matter of accounting only. Facebook seems to believe it’s not for now, that’s all there is to it.

[-] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

I said I have no problem with a tax for content aggregators. If they provide a summary of the content so that users don't have to visit your site. That's fair.

But wanting to be paid also for just a hyperlink? That's idiotic. That is a service they are receiving (for free). Why do I say that? Because when social media stop linking to content at all, the media producers start complaining about reduced traffic. So the links clearly provide value to the media companies.

So they simply took it too far. "we want to be paid for the service we provide" (the content itself) is fair. "We want to be paid for a service we actively want and are receiving for free" (the hyperlinking to their site on social media) is not.

[+] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca -16 points 1 year ago

Maybe the internet being built on links is a problem?

You could run the same argument for ads and tracking

[-] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

I'm not entirely sure how one could create a internet of interconnected computers and servers without links to one another and the webpages they serve.

Short of maybe making one "central hub" controlled by one state/entity. Though this would probably not turn out great.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Short of maybe making one “central hub” controlled by one state/entity. Though this would probably not turn out great

I think public search engines is a good idea though it would be multiple states

I suppose it’s because I’m old so I don’t like how centralized and profit driven the internet has become but I see nothing wrong with profit sharing with websites on pages where their link is used

[-] Rocket@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I see nothing wrong with profit sharing with websites on pages where their link is used

It's just strange when the law gets involved to carve out weird special cases for special interests.

If site operators don't want incoming connections to their systems without having record of payment received from a referring party, they can simply deny the request. Hell, put up a big red notice that says "You are not permitted to access this website because the place from whence you came refuses to pay for your access. Please encourage them to do so to help fund our wonderful content!" for all anyone cares.

This is all perfectly negotiable through boring old contract law that has been around forever.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I see the law as a step not the end and would rather further the reaches of the legislation than repeal it

As per blocking referrals I feel the issue is more the title and blurb stops people from clicking through as is. Hence the legislation

If Facebook wasn’t allowed to show more than just a link then they would react in a similar manner

Lemmy has a similar issue of people only reading the title or what the person said about a link

[-] Rocket@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If Facebook wasn’t allowed to show more than just a link then they would react in a similar manner

Funny thing is that Facebook gave publishers what they call Open Graph many years ago to allow them exacting control over what the links entail. All of Canada's major publications have adopted Open Graph. If you are seeing more than just a link, it is because the publication has explicitly given more information to Facebook to use.

If you don't want Facebook to have that information... maybe don't provide it?

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Can they prevent people from posting text with their links?

[-] Rocket@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If said posting fell under fair use there is little the publication can do, but that's on purpose! We created fair use laws specifically to allow that behaviour. If that is not what we want anymore, logically we would revert the law, not come up with all kinds of weird and contrived bandaids to help only special friends.

If the post fell short of fair use, the publication would have the legal right to seek penalization for the person who posted the content. It would also be a violation of Facebook's terms of service. In this case, the answer to your question is essentially yes. It cannot be prevented, per se, but corrective action can be taken – which also serves to dissuade others from doing the same in the future.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago

I’m glad you see the need for new regulations

[-] Rocket@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, you are quite right that the Canadian news media does not appropriately understand the technology they are trying to use and regulation should disallow their use of it going forward.

[-] Rocket@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m not entirely sure how one could create a internet of interconnected computers and servers without links to one another

One could always look at the history books, I guess. It is believed that the first real-world use of hyperlinks on the internet took place in 1991. It is also believed that the Internet as we know it was born in 1983. That means we lived through eight actual years of this "unimaginable" internet.

[-] tempest@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

aha the internet as you know it was not born in 1983 unless you are mostly interacting on lemmy with email and ftp

[-] wetnoodle@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

Ah yes what an interesting internet that would be: nothing links to anything, you're all alone, enjoy the empty internet

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

Back in the day we used email and word of mouth

[-] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 13 points 1 year ago

Here’s the key issue and principle buried deep at the bottom of the article.

She said a main area of discussion at the confab is how globally-minded digital companies had “really revolutionized our industries for a lot of good reasons” and added: “No one is saying to get Facebook or Google out of Canada — Canadians love and appreciate these services.”

Tait said Canadian broadcasters and services were required to pay taxes and services and invest in Canadian content, meaning companies as powerful as Alphabet and Meta would simply be paying into a existing system. “We all have requirements regarding local news so that there is a provision in a country of only 40 million to support our own domestic industry,” she said. “We would ask Facebook to be held responsible in the way we treat our own companies.”

[-] Rocket@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We all have requirements regarding local news

"Well all" meaning broadcasters. That is the deal in exchange for using public airwaves.

Facebook doesn't broadcast over public airwaves...

[-] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Exactly social media sites are not broadcasters, why should they pay to provide a link to forward users to a broadcasters website.

I would understand if a social media site wanted to summarize a news article for it's users to keep its users on its site. This would theoretically make a social media site a broadcaster.

Its like asking a convince store to pay a Canadian News Tax because they provide newspapers inside their store.

[-] Rocket@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This would theoretically make a social media site a broadcaster.

Not without a license allowing them to transmit radio and/or TV signals. Of which there would be no reason for Facebook to have.

It might make them a news agency, but news agencies are not subject to broadcasting regulations. Only broadcasters are subject to broadcasting regulations. The CBC is a broadcaster. Facebook is not.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Fee Speech

[-] Cypher@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

It seems CBC aren’t familiar with how this played out in Australia.

[-] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 10 points 1 year ago

I think they are, but understand that the dynamics of the situation are different within the North American context.

[-] Cypher@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

The proposed legislation in Canada was directly inspired by what happened in Australia.

What “dynamics“ are different with regards to paying for news on their platform in Canada compared to Australia?

[-] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

Canada is economically integrated with the United States in a way that Australia is not. Meta and Google understand that precedents weigh differently here.

[-] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago

By all means, elaborate.

[-] Cypher@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It’s literally in the linked article

Another situation came to a head in Australia two years ago, with Facebook blocking news content after being ordered to shell out cash. The standoff ended quickly with the major social media platforms agreeing a deal with the Australian government to create the News Media Bargaining Code, which sees news providers paid for their online content.

Facebook made it seem like everyone would lose out to give themselves a better bargaining position and now they pay for news content in Australia.

They will simply do this everywhere and force terms they find acceptable, or block news in countries unwilling to negotiate.

[-] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 5 points 1 year ago

Okay, but what is your point exactly? You seem to be arguing with...something.

[-] Cypher@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

CBC’s prediction isn’t worth much when we have precedent that says otherwise.

[-] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 6 points 1 year ago

Is there any indication whatsoever that Facebook is willing to enter into negotiations with the government over this? If there is, I missed it.

[-] Cypher@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

There are those who learn from history and those who are doomed to repeat it.

[-] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago

Do you have anything to add beyond platitudes?

[-] Cypher@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

Facebook is a corporation. Corporations operate for profit.

If negotiating would lead to continued profit they will negotiate.

I didn’t realise this was c/explainlikeimfive but here we are.

[-] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago

Always good to interact with your peers.

[-] Rocket@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Corporations operate for profit.

Nonprofit and not-for-profit corporations have entered the chat...

[-] k_rol@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Why is that?

[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

Neat ... just in time for the upcoming US elections

I wonder what's going to happen to information sharing leading up the election of the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world.

[-] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

The bill the Canada government passed (with pressure from Canadian news agencies) will only effect Canadians for the time being.

Right now for example trying to find a link to Canadian News on a few social media sites is getting hard. We still have the option of going direct to our news sites (though not sure if search engine will also be required to remove links to Canadian news sites).

For this to effect the US a similar bill would need to be passed.

this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023

158 points (95.9% liked)

Canada

7106 readers

332 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Regions

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL)

List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

List of All Teams: unknown
Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

List of All Teams: unknown
Toronto Raptors

Soccer

List of All Teams: unknown
General Community: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Universities

UBC
UWaterloo
SFU
UoGuelph
OTU
McGill
U Western
UofT
UofA: unknown

💵 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

otter@lemmy.ca