I honestly can’t blame Facebook for this, that law is stupid and should never have been passed. It stinks of tech illiteracy on behalf of both the government and the lobbyists that made it happen.
I honestly can’t blame Facebook for this, that law is stupid and should never have been passed. It stinks of tech illiteracy on behalf of both the government and the lobbyists that made it happen.
Agreed. Why they thought Google and Facebook wouldn't just block news is beyond me. It should have been written with enforcement mechanisms such as not allowing them to collect any ad revenue if...
Agreed. Why they thought Google and Facebook wouldn't just block news is beyond me. It should have been written with enforcement mechanisms such as not allowing them to collect any ad revenue if they blocked news.
So the government should have implemented a law that forced Facebook to Post links to specific pieces of content Forced them to pay publishers for posting the links? That’s the definition of...
So the government should have implemented a law that forced Facebook to
Post links to specific pieces of content
Forced them to pay publishers for posting the links?
That’s the definition of forced speech. Would that even be constitutionally permissible?
Not what I was trying to say so my apologies if it came across that way. I just think they needed an enforcement mechanism. Facebook was always going to just block news instead of paying for it....
Not what I was trying to say so my apologies if it came across that way.
I just think they needed an enforcement mechanism. Facebook was always going to just block news instead of paying for it. So they should have added a punishment for doing so like removing all ad revenue so that Facebook pays for news instead of just banning it.
Isn’t that essentially the same thing as forcing them to do it? Without ad revenue they would have to declare bankruptcy immediately. Are there any similar laws that you know of? Nothing springs...
Isn’t that essentially the same thing as forcing them to do it? Without ad revenue they would have to declare bankruptcy immediately. Are there any similar laws that you know of? Nothing springs to mind for me.
In Canada? I assume the money they make here is a drop in the bucket for them. Facebook brings nothing of value. I wouldn't be sad to see them leave Canada if they don't want to pay news...
In Canada? I assume the money they make here is a drop in the bucket for them. Facebook brings nothing of value. I wouldn't be sad to see them leave Canada if they don't want to pay news organizations.
Why should the government require the services of a private company to distribute news and alerts? Canada shouldn't be dependent on Facebook to share critical wildfire notices. Surely there are...
Why should the government require the services of a private company to distribute news and alerts?
Canada shouldn't be dependent on Facebook to share critical wildfire notices. Surely there are other systems that can used to make people aware of information as necessary. Centralizing all media and communications through Facebook or Twitter or Reddit or any other private social media has risks.
I think people would respond to emergency notifications on their phone from government sources. Trust in government or mainstream media shouldn't have any bearing on distributing urgent...
I think people would respond to emergency notifications on their phone from government sources. Trust in government or mainstream media shouldn't have any bearing on distributing urgent communications. I don't see any reason Facebook must distribute information.
So I don't think FB should be obligated to do anything. Having said that, some of these wildfires are happening in notoriously conservative areas (Kelowna) and there a decent number of people who...
So I don't think FB should be obligated to do anything.
Having said that, some of these wildfires are happening in notoriously conservative areas (Kelowna) and there a decent number of people who really, really hate the government to the point that they would probably ignore such warnings, as idiotic as it might seem.
The govt just wants FB etc to distribute these warnings for more coverage, not as the only method of doing so. We have alert messages that go out already via text message but they want to make sure to reach everyone.
Right, I don't disagree with you there. And true, Facebook (or other social media platforms) have no obligation to distribute news, but it certainly is the quickest way to reach the largest amount...
Right, I don't disagree with you there. And true, Facebook (or other social media platforms) have no obligation to distribute news, but it certainly is the quickest way to reach the largest amount of people these days. It's only through their poor ability to moderate their content that they now bear this responsibility. (see: inciting ethnically motivated hate in Myanmar, Ethiopia, Uyghurs in China, etc.)
In other words, they don't have to distribute information, but they have become the place to distribute information. They wanted a social network, and they got it.
As much as I hated the fact that Trump administration sent me a random text, this is exactly the kind of situation where it would be useful. I'm guessing those cable emergency broadcast rely on......
As much as I hated the fact that Trump administration sent me a random text, this is exactly the kind of situation where it would be useful. I'm guessing those cable emergency broadcast rely on... well, a cable subscription to work.
They don't have a right to use Facebook in the first place. Facebook is a private social media company, not a government sponsored news site. So yes, they absolutely can suck it up, no matter what...
They don't have a right to use Facebook in the first place.
Facebook is a private social media company, not a government sponsored news site.
So yes, they absolutely can suck it up, no matter what they want to talk about.
They made a choice and facebook responded. They can either reverse their decision or deal with the consequences of their own actions, it ain't Facebook's fault.
I'm in Canada, currently news is blocked on my Meta accounts, and I get nonstop gambling ads and crypto scams. By closing the loop to outside services like news publications, it becomes so much...
I'm in Canada, currently news is blocked on my Meta accounts, and I get nonstop gambling ads and crypto scams. By closing the loop to outside services like news publications, it becomes so much harder to find any reliable sources of information via Facebook. The same goes for Alphabet as well; the content regulation for their ads are incredibly loose and unmoderated, I see so many that are just straight up scams or misleading content.
Big tech companies shirk the responsibility to moderate their content because they believe they're extraterritorial. Every level of government bends over backwards to please these firms, this law is an attempt to get them in line. The longer this continues, the worse the effects will be for overall media literacy in this country.
But they're not supposed to be depending on Facebook for news. Facebook isn't a place for that. If anything there should have been attempts to help improve media literacy and teach where you can...
But they're not supposed to be depending on Facebook for news. Facebook isn't a place for that.
If anything there should have been attempts to help improve media literacy and teach where you can get news that isn't on Facebook. And the government should have built a system for emergencies that people can use to get news from.
A government should not be dependent on Facebook for something it should be doing itself. That gives a private corporation way too much power over very important things in your country.
I know this is specifically a first world thing, where in other places the only access to the internet is Facebook and the government itself is terribly ineptly corrupt.
But that's not the level Canada is at.
But also the reality of things is that these things weren't established beforehand and that people are dying. So hopefully they can find a way to work with Facebook temporarily or to find a different workaround to get news to people.
But long term wise, they should figure out ways to be self sufficient.
How do you think the majority of people get their news? Why is everyone in my hometown spouting off about destroying the WEF, various anti-semitic conspiracy theories, and the authoritarian...
But they're not supposed to be depending on Facebook for news. Facebook isn't a place for that.
How do you think the majority of people get their news? Why is everyone in my hometown spouting off about destroying the WEF, various anti-semitic conspiracy theories, and the authoritarian one-world shadow government that will soon force us all to eat bugs? It's all entirely fantasy, amplified by a complete lack of content moderation. Facebook and other tech media companies are simply reaping what they have sown with this.
A government should not be dependent on Facebook for something it should be doing itself. That a private corporation way too much power over very important things in your country.
I hate to be facetious, but takea lookaround. The damage has already been done.
Yes. That is currently happening. I'm not denying that. I'm not sure what I said would imply that it isn't happening. But that doesn't mean you can't try to change that. It should be the...
Yes. That is currently happening. I'm not denying that. I'm not sure what I said would imply that it isn't happening.
But that doesn't mean you can't try to change that. It should be the government's job to try and change it. That's why I called it a long term issue or goal.
If they're taking off news from Facebook, they should have supplemented that with other government options to get emergency news from and have attempts at media literacy education/awareness (if that's even possible).
And if anything, I see the government's attempts at the law that prompted Facebook to ban news as them trying to wrestle some power back from Facebook. They just half assed it. They should have had a long term plan that included not depending on Facebook for emergency news.
There could be an alternative route where this poisons the well and people realize they shouldn't get their news from the same place they chat casually with folk. At least in first world...
There could be an alternative route where this poisons the well and people realize they shouldn't get their news from the same place they chat casually with folk. At least in first world countries.
But I haven't been thst optimistic about social media in years.
This is why career politicians are a problem imo. When the only thing you do is spout bullshit and know jack shit what you're doing or what people's interests are because you're literally divorced...
This is why career politicians are a problem imo.
When the only thing you do is spout bullshit and know jack shit what you're doing or what people's interests are because you're literally divorced from everyone else's reality, that's a problem.
I'm struggling to understand some of the comments here. Yes the whys and wherefores are an important discussion to have, but in the meantime there's a potential chance of saving lives. Whether you...
Exemplary
I'm struggling to understand some of the comments here.
Yes the whys and wherefores are an important discussion to have, but in the meantime there's a potential chance of saving lives. Whether you personally think people should or shouldn't use Facebook as a news source is part of that important discussion, but in the meantime people do use Facebook as a news source and there's a potential chance of saving lives
The alternative is knowing people might die and that being an important way to make a point. If you think that I think you need to take a look at yourself.
I get where you're coming from, but this reasoning was used word-for-word to justify things like the US' Patriot Act. I know that probably sounds like absurd hyperbole, but we're talking about the...
Yes the whys and wherefores are an important discussion to have, but in the meantime there's a potential chance of saving lives.
I get where you're coming from, but this reasoning was used word-for-word to justify things like the US' Patriot Act. I know that probably sounds like absurd hyperbole, but we're talking about the interaction between a government and media - I think it's relevant.
Per the article, Meta already allows users to get info from official Canadian government pages. I think that's sufficient to allow people to get information. I don't support the government trying to force meta to allow news articles, which meta would then have to pay the Canadian government for, per the new law.
You're trying to guilt people, which is very unfair, bordering on disingenous. Canada made the decision to make it harder for non-canadian media to operate in Canada. If Canada really cares about...
You're trying to guilt people, which is very unfair, bordering on disingenous.
Canada made the decision to make it harder for non-canadian media to operate in Canada. If Canada really cares about saving lives, they can repeal C-18. It goes both ways, and the onus is on Canada for this one, not facebook.
Disagreeing with you doesn't make an argument disingenuous. It's not about guilt, it's about practicality. The new law is stupid, but making that a barrier to potentially saving lives is even more...
Disagreeing with you doesn't make an argument disingenuous.
It's not about guilt, it's about practicality.
The new law is stupid, but making that a barrier to potentially saving lives is even more stupid; two wrongs don't make a right.
No, disagreeing doesn't, trying to guilt people for saying that Facebook doesn't have to kneel to Canada just because Canada is experiencing the consequences for their actions does. There is no...
No, disagreeing doesn't, trying to guilt people for saying that Facebook doesn't have to kneel to Canada just because Canada is experiencing the consequences for their actions does.
There is no two wrongs, Canada did something stupid, that's one wrong, so facebook pulled out. That's not a wrong.
Canada needs to either get rid of C-18 or stop crying when they caused the problem.
People may die (even though it's Canadian news's job to inform people about disasters, not facebook), but that blood will be on the Canadian government's hands, not facebook.
Canada should have realized this would be a problem for them when they passed the law. Now they can either be responsible for those potential deaths or repeal the law.
I feel we're missing the short term problems for the long term. I hope most of us can agree that this is an emergency. So at least for now, it's best to put aside blame and bias and get people to...
I feel we're missing the short term problems for the long term. I hope most of us can agree that this is an emergency. So at least for now, it's best to put aside blame and bias and get people to safety. Arguing won't bring back lives lost to the squabble (nor would arguing about who to pin the deaths on).
After the dust settles, we can work on something to make sure this doesn't happen again. And a government shouldn't rely on a private corporation to spread news, so im more inclined to hope they don't fold to Facebook.
To expand on what you're saying, and which is also what I think @norney 's point is: The government is wrong to reads title make demands when this is such a very obvious consequence of this law. I...
To expand on what you're saying, and which is also what I think @norney 's point is:
The government is wrong to reads title make demands when this is such a very obvious consequence of this law. I don't think it's in any way right for any government to force a private company to pay protection to another private company. The law gives Facebook a choice, and it's not reads articlereckless to make the choice the government doesn't want you to make.
But Zuck can afford to waste billions on needless nonsense. Under these dire circumstances, he might look like less of an alien robot if he temporarily made an exception and splurged on some private news in order to help save less connected people. No one would mind, unless he thinks it would hurt his credibility as a villain.
Why does this serve to keep his credibility as a villain, but the Canadian government's credibility isn't at issue? Why can't the government demand themselves to change the law immediately so that...
Under these dire circumstances, he might look like less of an alien robot if he temporarily made an exception and splurged on some private news in order to help save less connected people. No one would mind, unless he thinks it would hurt his credibility as a villain.
Why does this serve to keep his credibility as a villain, but the Canadian government's credibility isn't at issue?
Why can't the government demand themselves to change the law immediately so that Facebook lifts the ban on posting news links? Why isn't the government concerned about looking bad if they don't react immediately?
It seems the answer is that Facebook sets a higher standard than the government and the government has even less competition than Facebook. People don't expect their government to get off their ass and do any work, even if people are dying, even if the government is the one that fucked up to begin with, because they already assume the government won't do anything and they don't feel like they have any power to change it. They don't even bother to question why they're begging Facebook to do something rather than begging the government to do something, but the answer is right there.
Of course it's pretty pathetic that anyone compared to Facebook should look bad, but in this case, seems they found a way.
I don't think the Canadian government is looking good in this scenario. I also have no idea how long it would realistically take to roll back the law, since I'm not familiar with the country's...
I don't think the Canadian government is looking good in this scenario. I also have no idea how long it would realistically take to roll back the law, since I'm not familiar with the country's legislative process. I do gather everything's on fire right now, though. Generally, historically, democracies move more slowly than tyrannies (I'm talking about Facebook here, which is solely controlled by one person).
Any country in a legitimate emergency can probably rouse all their officials to take immediate action if the situation is dire. You think if North Korea didn't send a missile their way they...
I also have no idea how long it would realistically take to roll back the law, since I'm not familiar with the country's legislative process.
Any country in a legitimate emergency can probably rouse all their officials to take immediate action if the situation is dire. You think if North Korea didn't send a missile their way they wouldn't be able to make any changes they needed right away? Not that that type of action necessitates legislators action, but if it did, I bet they wouldn't waste any time.
In general, CEOs of public companies can't just do whatever they want because they have shareholders. From a quick search it looks like Zuckerberg might have set it up in a way where he was able to barely maintain majority control even though he doesn't have majority of shares, so maybe he can get away with doing things in the short term and not be called to much consequence for them by shareholders, but I'm guessing there's still some consequences to bear if he doesn't do right by the other shareholders.
Because Zuckerberg is one man and this isn't even the 100th time we've had this discussion on Facebook and how information spreads and who is accountable. They've made platitudes dozens of time to...
Why does this serve to keep his credibility as a villain, but the Canadian government's credibility isn't at issue?
Because Zuckerberg is one man and this isn't even the 100th time we've had this discussion on Facebook and how information spreads and who is accountable. They've made platitudes dozens of time to address this which have not shown in action.
I don't think this makes the Canadian government's actions good, but their short term prioritization (the people) does come off as "the right thing". I hope after this they make sure that we don't have to run into this issue again (lest it just makes them come off as worse), but this is an emergency situation. Putting aside pride and agendas and focusing on serving the people wherever possible is what a government should do.
Why can't the government demand themselves to change the law immediately so that Facebook lifts the ban on posting news links?
I don't know the Canadian government's processes and I don't know if they have an equivalent of US exectutive orders. A very brief google doesn't look optimistic, so the answer may simply be that the formal process takes too much time.
People don't expect their government to get off their ass and do any work, even if people are dying, even if the government is the one that fucked up to begin with, because they already assume the government won't do anything and they don't feel like they have any power to change it.
do the Canadian citizens feel that way about the Canadian government? I don't want to take the political strife of the US and universally apply it everywhere.
I don't see how their short term prioritization is the people here. The fact that there would be an emergency at some point is rather foreseeable, every country has them at various times to...
but their short term prioritization (the people) does come off as "the right thing". I hope after this they make sure that we don't have to run into this issue again (lest it just makes them come off as worse), but this is an emergency situation.
I don't see how their short term prioritization is the people here. The fact that there would be an emergency at some point is rather foreseeable, every country has them at various times to various degrees. Of course they couldn't predict this exact emergency at this exact time, but the argument you're making could apply to any number of emergencies that could have happened and it was basically inevitable that at some point one of them was going to happen. So they chose this path, if they had good reason to believe Facebook would take this course of action, they chose to make a law that in a state of emergency, news wouldn't be able to be spread as easily on Facebook. This didn't just catch them by surprise, they knew it would happen.
I don't know the Canadian government's processes and I don't know if they have an equivalent of US exectutive orders. A very brief google doesn't look optimistic, so the answer may simply be that the formal process takes too much time.
I'll copy my statement from another comment.
Any country in a legitimate emergency can probably rouse all their officials to take immediate action if the situation is dire. You think if North Korea didn't send a missile their way they wouldn't be able to make any changes they needed right away? Not that that type of action necessitates legislators action, but if it did, I bet they wouldn't waste any time.
do the Canadian citizens feel that way about the Canadian government? I don't want to take the political strife of the US and universally apply it everywhere.
If they happen to be calling for Facebook to take action rather than their government, in a situation that their government created, then what other explanation is there for that behavior? Why hold Facebook to a higher standard than your own government, no matter what country you reside in, unless you have no faith in your government and feel you can't hold your government accountable? Even if Canadians aren't calling on Facebook to take action, it's a reflection of any other people on here that are calling for Facebook rather than the Canadian government. The people residing in the US, UK or wherever else, they think so little of their own government that they most likely assume the same of other governments, and thus blame Facebook rather than Canadian politicians. The fact that Canadian government officials are calling for Facebook to do something rather than doing something themselves seems to suggest that at the very least they themselves believe they don't have to worry about being held accountable.
Well it is their PR statement, for one: we can talk about undertones and long term ramifications of this, but they are just that. Something to discuss long term. I don't deny it was a lack of poor...
I don't see how their short term prioritization is the people here
Well it is their PR statement, for one:
"Meta's reckless choice to block news ... is hurting access to vital information on Facebook and Instagram,"... "We are calling on them to reinstate news sharing today for the safety of Canadians facing this emergency.
we can talk about undertones and long term ramifications of this, but they are just that. Something to discuss long term.
Of course they couldn't predict this exact emergency at this exact time, but the argument you're making could apply to any number of emergencies that could have happened and it was basically inevitable that at some point one of them was going to happen
I don't deny it was a lack of poor planning, or some other short sighting that they feel a need to call upon FB. But I also don't know if they were working on this and disaster struck before anything can formalize. I do know that when passing bills that you never pass everything you want in one go.
Either way, inevitable or not, I do hope they would take any means necessary to minimize casualties when disaster does strike. In comparison, the US had an entire organization prepared for a global pandemic no one could predict, and to say the Trump administration dropped the ball would be the understatement of the century. I'd take "unplanned" improvisation any day over that circus show that costed possible millions of lives.
You think if North Korea didn't send a missile their way they wouldn't be able to make any changes they needed right away?
A missle is a tangible thing with a direct time limit. Most governments have special orders for military defense. There's no need to vote on whether to stop a missle from destroying a town, in a similar way in that a police doesn't need immediate permission to arrest a citizen (they dispute those charges after arrest).
This is another situation that doesn't quite scale to the online world, especially an online world of private companies with effects on a country (and a company not based in Canada to begin with, simply operating there). The govenment doesn't have tendrils that can force websites to broadcast their messages. At least, most first world western countries don't. This is certainly a debate that should have been solved long ago
If they happen to be calling for Facebook to take action rather than their government, in a situation that their government created, then what other explanation is there for that behavior?
Pretty obvious; I don't want to call the people dumb, but if I see a website not functioning the way I expect, and I'm not a tech saavy users, I blame the website. This non-tech literate me doesn't care why it's not working, I just want it to work again. Some may complain on FB, some would complain to their government (be it the right or wrong channel).
I don't even think it's as deep as "they don't trust the government". They just want FB to work again. We've seen this pattern with multiple other social media websites in non-life threatening features being paywalled or removed. That's depressing for entirely tangential reasons, but I don't want to turn this into another debate over enshittification.
No, we can't just put aside blame, because that lets people abuse morality to strongarm people into doing what they want. This is the government effectively trying to strongarm Facebook with an...
No, we can't just put aside blame, because that lets people abuse morality to strongarm people into doing what they want.
This is the government effectively trying to strongarm Facebook with an emergency, which is pretty scummy. If they really gave a shit, they'd repeal C-18, even at least temporarily. But they don't because they don't really give a shit I guess.
It doesn't matter if facebook could do something, they aren't obligated to kneel to Canada and accept their bullshit law just because Canada is having an emergency, it's Canada's obligation to take care of their own emergency. it's not facebook's job to.
And it's still Canadian news' job to spread this info, not facebook. They don't need or deserve facebook at all, they want it and are trying to abuse their position of crisis to get it.
We can delay it until after the fires are no longer endangering lives. Even IF they started the process to repeal the law, it would take too long for it to start re-instating FB news in the proper...
No, we can't just put aside blame, because that lets people abuse morality to strongarm people into doing what they want.
We can delay it until after the fires are no longer endangering lives. Even IF they started the process to repeal the law, it would take too long for it to start re-instating FB news in the proper channels. They are abused to all hell, but the US has executive orders for these exact reasons (I don't know what Canada has for that).
And it's still Canadian news' job to spread this info, not facebook.
I agree. But this is again a long term problem to resolve. Like it or not, there is an audience unaware that could die. We should prioritize them not dying. Again, we can assign blame afterwards.
Exactly, so Canada can stop C-18 temporarily due to emergency conditions (keyword emergency so there's no excuse for not doing it immediately). There is no action facebook needs to take. If Canada...
We can delay it until after the fires are no longer endangering lives.
Exactly, so Canada can stop C-18 temporarily due to emergency conditions (keyword emergency so there's no excuse for not doing it immediately). There is no action facebook needs to take.
If Canada is willing to dig in their heels with excuse after excuse even in the face of their own citizens dying, that's on them.
Can they? That's the action I don't have enough knowledge about Canadian government to comment on that. Plus, even if they repeal it, It doesn't necessarily guaranteee FB will turn it on...
so Canada can stop C-18 temporarily due to emergency conditions
Can they? That's the action I don't have enough knowledge about Canadian government to comment on that. Plus, even if they repeal it, It doesn't necessarily guaranteee FB will turn it on immediately. Not if it's "only a temporary repeal". It just opens up more arguments and pointing that can be saved for afterwards.
Right or wrong, it is quicker for FB to turn it back on and then later try to argue against the charges, as I'm sure they do for every other tax measure in the world anyway. I'm not exactly worried that FB is going to suffer financially from that action.
I would think they could do an Order-in-Council to suspend implementation of C-18, but like you I am not familiar with the Canadian jurisprudence. Maybe @Loire, @cfabbro, or one of our other...
I would think they could do an Order-in-Council to suspend implementation of C-18, but like you I am not familiar with the Canadian jurisprudence. Maybe @Loire, @cfabbro, or one of our other resident Canadians could chime in.
Facebook left due to C-18. If Canada is willing to repeal C-18, and since turning Facebook back on in Canada would be fast, as you said, they can work out a deal with Facebook given their...
Facebook left due to C-18. If Canada is willing to repeal C-18, and since turning Facebook back on in Canada would be fast, as you said, they can work out a deal with Facebook given their EMERGENCY to immediately allow Canada access to Facebook immediately after the emergency repeal.
That puts the ball in Facebook's court, and then you can blame them if they say no.
But right now the ball is in Canada's court, and they aren't willing to even take the first step.
I'm struggling to understand what it is you're advocating for. Are you advocating Facebook is supposed to fork over money to act as part of the emergency response on behalf of Canada, but not...
Yes the whys and wherefores are an important discussion to have, but in the meantime there's a potential chance of saving lives. Whether you personally think people should or shouldn't use Facebook as a news source is part of that important discussion, but in the meantime people do use Facebook as a news source and there's a potential chance of saving lives
I'm struggling to understand what it is you're advocating for.
Are you advocating Facebook is supposed to fork over money to act as part of the emergency response on behalf of Canada, but not directly through a prearranged tax to operate in Canada, but instead be forced to pay media companies an uncertain and potentially unlimited amount of money (depending on how much something is linked). They're also supposed to drop what they're doing to retool whatever they may need to in order to track all of this or account for it?
Maybe you aren't advocating that, maybe you're advocating the government should call some kind of emergency session to write in an exception to the law.
Mind you, emergencies aren't unforeseen in the broad sense, they will happen, you just don't know exactly when or what type of emergency it will be, but they always happen eventually. So broadly, this circumstance was pretty foreseeable and yet seemingly not addressed in the changes to the law.
The new law is utterly and foreseeably stupid. Using that as a justification to refuse to help in a national emergency is worse, especially when FB has a long factual history of implementing...
The new law is utterly and foreseeably stupid. Using that as a justification to refuse to help in a national emergency is worse, especially when FB has a long factual history of implementing emergency measures.
So why call out Facebook for obstructing emergency help rather than the government? Seems your case is basically along the lines of "Facebook might actually listen, whereas it's not reasonable to...
So why call out Facebook for obstructing emergency help rather than the government? Seems your case is basically along the lines of "Facebook might actually listen, whereas it's not reasonable to expect the government to care enough to react quickly". So punish the corporation with financial penalties because they care more than the government does. If the situation can be resolved by Facebook allowing links regardless of cost, why can't the situation also be resolved by expecting any government in such a situation to get out of bed at midnight or whenever an emergency happens and fix the problem they created?
The new law is utterly and foreseeably stupid.
If it's foreseeably stupid and done knowingly where it would lead to such a situation, I would argue just calling it stupid isn't enough, it's malicious. How is refusing to work when you aren't being paid worse than the government maliciously creating such a situation to begin with?
I don't like Facebook, but it feels like the Canadian government is here compelling Facebook to pay for third party services (or at least, what Canada has decided to recognize as a service) in a...
I don't like Facebook, but it feels like the Canadian government is here compelling Facebook to pay for third party services (or at least, what Canada has decided to recognize as a service) in a way in which it can't control. I'm sure if Canada was to give an exemption from the pay-for-links rule for these articles, Facebook could figure out a way to permit them.
It's a tax, isn't it? A tax to subsidize Canadian media companies. None of these hugh tech companies want to be taxed and they spend like wild (internationally) to avoid it. Australia recently...
It's a tax, isn't it? A tax to subsidize Canadian media companies. None of these hugh tech companies want to be taxed and they spend like wild (internationally) to avoid it.
But that's a completely bizarre tax structure. If the government wanted to subsidize media organizations, they should simply do that. If the government wants to tax big tech, they should just do...
But that's a completely bizarre tax structure. If the government wanted to subsidize media organizations, they should simply do that. If the government wants to tax big tech, they should just do that.
Complicated tax structures frequently lead to unintended consequences. This was a blatantly obvious outcome though, so the blame falls on the Canadian government.
This will unquestionably make things bad for reliable news in Canada. Reliable sources from within Canada are blocked while misinformation and conspiracy theories will continue to spread like...
This will unquestionably make things bad for reliable news in Canada. Reliable sources from within Canada are blocked while misinformation and conspiracy theories will continue to spread like wildfire. It's already begun, it's just about to get way, way, worse.
Is it reasonable to ask that people take some responsibility for their sources of information? If life safety information is available directly from the news sources (webpages, print, and...
Is it reasonable to ask that people take some responsibility for their sources of information?
If life safety information is available directly from the news sources (webpages, print, and broadcast) and governmental websites, why should readers expect Facebook to provide this reliably?
Facebook trades on the implied credibility of stories exchanged among "friends and family", to the detriment of truth. I believe it would benefit everyone to get back to original sources wherever possible, even if that happens at the cost of effort to click more than one link, and pay subscription fees.
It's definitely a 3 layer issue at hand. the people should have proper sources for local news, especially when emergency situations arise. I don't think Facebook is a "proper source", nor any...
Exemplary
It's definitely a 3 layer issue at hand.
the people should have proper sources for local news, especially when emergency situations arise. I don't think Facebook is a "proper source", nor any large social media whose focus tends to be national or global.
Facebook has no obligation to provide proper news, but is also been under scrutiny for years under the spread of misinformation. This is a much larger and very much talked about issue that will probably pop up multiple times before even this month ends, so I won't dwell much on it here.
A government should have proper channels to use for emergency situations to notify its citizens, without any reliance of private entities (except perhaps as contracted to build said infrastructure).
We're putting aside point #2 for now. Though I will make a quick quip to say that
Meta says users do not come to its platform for news and forcing the company to pay for content shared on its platforms is unsustainable for its business.
was probably the most tone deaf and unnecessary PR response to this. They mention right above this that they activated a "safety check" feature and I felt that spoke enough for itself without the above PR.
Point #1 is an ideal situation that we've seen many times in many instances fall through as people converge to the largest websites. Websites that focus more on entertainment or interpersonal communication than being informed on the world at large. This can be perhaps mitigated long term with proper education, but we're talking on a scale of 20+ years. There's not too much on the individual side to do short term to rectify this. Simply discourage people from receiving news on their informal social media with no incentive to fact check and to create a formal news feed (sadly I feel this solution may be leveraged by, yet again, another private company. As opposed to users learning to curate their own news)
Point #3 is definitely the largest blunder, and this article seems to indirectly imply that emergency channels were insufficient; if citizens are complaining about not being able to link to news on social media, they either feel emergency broadcasts were inadequate, and/or there is a certain internal need to broadcast to friends. The latter is more of a social media problem, but the government can do something about the former.
Maybe I’ll start with Every time I load up Facebook, it’s a ghost town. Out of the hundreds of friends I have, maybe one or two regularly share things? I get that maybe there there is some...
Maybe I’ll start with
Meta says users do not come to its platform for news
Every time I load up Facebook, it’s a ghost town. Out of the hundreds of friends I have, maybe one or two regularly share things? I get that maybe there there is some activity going on in niche or local groups, but the whole thing feels like smoke and mirrors.
These Canadian officials complaining in the article were probably trained in how to use social media a decade ago, and haven’t really evolved.
We just went through a wildfire in our community a month ago. Our sources of info were a) watching the sky fill with smoke and turn red, b) seeing people in our subdivision packing up, c) getting...
We just went through a wildfire in our community a month ago. Our sources of info were a) watching the sky fill with smoke and turn red, b) seeing people in our subdivision packing up, c) getting an emergency evacuation alert directly on our phones (we'd already left) and for those who were slow, d) neighbors and first responders going door to door to make sure everyone was notified.
Dont know why one would need facebook's news links to figure out its time to leave.
I honestly can’t blame Facebook for this, that law is stupid and should never have been passed. It stinks of tech illiteracy on behalf of both the government and the lobbyists that made it happen.
Agreed. Why they thought Google and Facebook wouldn't just block news is beyond me. It should have been written with enforcement mechanisms such as not allowing them to collect any ad revenue if they blocked news.
Good intention poorly executed.
So the government should have implemented a law that forced Facebook to
That’s the definition of forced speech. Would that even be constitutionally permissible?
Not what I was trying to say so my apologies if it came across that way.
I just think they needed an enforcement mechanism. Facebook was always going to just block news instead of paying for it. So they should have added a punishment for doing so like removing all ad revenue so that Facebook pays for news instead of just banning it.
Isn’t that essentially the same thing as forcing them to do it? Without ad revenue they would have to declare bankruptcy immediately. Are there any similar laws that you know of? Nothing springs to mind for me.
In Canada? I assume the money they make here is a drop in the bucket for them. Facebook brings nothing of value. I wouldn't be sad to see them leave Canada if they don't want to pay news organizations.
As someone who argued that C-18 was a good idea, I say:
Suck it up Canada, you don't get it both ways.
That's a pretty cold take when we're talking about people in a massive wildfire
Why should the government require the services of a private company to distribute news and alerts?
Canada shouldn't be dependent on Facebook to share critical wildfire notices. Surely there are other systems that can used to make people aware of information as necessary. Centralizing all media and communications through Facebook or Twitter or Reddit or any other private social media has risks.
People have way more faith in social media than they do in governments, at least in Canada. Can't put that toothpaste back in the tube
I think people would respond to emergency notifications on their phone from government sources. Trust in government or mainstream media shouldn't have any bearing on distributing urgent communications. I don't see any reason Facebook must distribute information.
So I don't think FB should be obligated to do anything.
Having said that, some of these wildfires are happening in notoriously conservative areas (Kelowna) and there a decent number of people who really, really hate the government to the point that they would probably ignore such warnings, as idiotic as it might seem.
The govt just wants FB etc to distribute these warnings for more coverage, not as the only method of doing so. We have alert messages that go out already via text message but they want to make sure to reach everyone.
Right, I don't disagree with you there. And true, Facebook (or other social media platforms) have no obligation to distribute news, but it certainly is the quickest way to reach the largest amount of people these days. It's only through their poor ability to moderate their content that they now bear this responsibility. (see: inciting ethnically motivated hate in Myanmar, Ethiopia, Uyghurs in China, etc.)
In other words, they don't have to distribute information, but they have become the place to distribute information. They wanted a social network, and they got it.
Centralizing is not the same as including
As much as I hated the fact that Trump administration sent me a random text, this is exactly the kind of situation where it would be useful. I'm guessing those cable emergency broadcast rely on... well, a cable subscription to work.
They don't have a right to use Facebook in the first place.
Facebook is a private social media company, not a government sponsored news site.
So yes, they absolutely can suck it up, no matter what they want to talk about.
They made a choice and facebook responded. They can either reverse their decision or deal with the consequences of their own actions, it ain't Facebook's fault.
You dont need news outlets to be able to effectively communicate about this stuff on Facebook.
I'm in Canada, currently news is blocked on my Meta accounts, and I get nonstop gambling ads and crypto scams. By closing the loop to outside services like news publications, it becomes so much harder to find any reliable sources of information via Facebook. The same goes for Alphabet as well; the content regulation for their ads are incredibly loose and unmoderated, I see so many that are just straight up scams or misleading content.
Big tech companies shirk the responsibility to moderate their content because they believe they're extraterritorial. Every level of government bends over backwards to please these firms, this law is an attempt to get them in line. The longer this continues, the worse the effects will be for overall media literacy in this country.
But they're not supposed to be depending on Facebook for news. Facebook isn't a place for that.
If anything there should have been attempts to help improve media literacy and teach where you can get news that isn't on Facebook. And the government should have built a system for emergencies that people can use to get news from.
A government should not be dependent on Facebook for something it should be doing itself. That gives a private corporation way too much power over very important things in your country.
I know this is specifically a first world thing, where in other places the only access to the internet is Facebook and the government itself is terribly ineptly corrupt.
But that's not the level Canada is at.
But also the reality of things is that these things weren't established beforehand and that people are dying. So hopefully they can find a way to work with Facebook temporarily or to find a different workaround to get news to people.
But long term wise, they should figure out ways to be self sufficient.
How do you think the majority of people get their news? Why is everyone in my hometown spouting off about destroying the WEF, various anti-semitic conspiracy theories, and the authoritarian one-world shadow government that will soon force us all to eat bugs? It's all entirely fantasy, amplified by a complete lack of content moderation. Facebook and other tech media companies are simply reaping what they have sown with this.
I hate to be facetious, but take a look around. The damage has already been done.
Yes. That is currently happening. I'm not denying that. I'm not sure what I said would imply that it isn't happening.
But that doesn't mean you can't try to change that. It should be the government's job to try and change it. That's why I called it a long term issue or goal.
If they're taking off news from Facebook, they should have supplemented that with other government options to get emergency news from and have attempts at media literacy education/awareness (if that's even possible).
And if anything, I see the government's attempts at the law that prompted Facebook to ban news as them trying to wrestle some power back from Facebook. They just half assed it. They should have had a long term plan that included not depending on Facebook for emergency news.
There could be an alternative route where this poisons the well and people realize they shouldn't get their news from the same place they chat casually with folk. At least in first world countries.
But I haven't been thst optimistic about social media in years.
This is why career politicians are a problem imo.
When the only thing you do is spout bullshit and know jack shit what you're doing or what people's interests are because you're literally divorced from everyone else's reality, that's a problem.
I'm struggling to understand some of the comments here.
Yes the whys and wherefores are an important discussion to have, but in the meantime there's a potential chance of saving lives. Whether you personally think people should or shouldn't use Facebook as a news source is part of that important discussion, but in the meantime people do use Facebook as a news source and there's a potential chance of saving lives
The alternative is knowing people might die and that being an important way to make a point. If you think that I think you need to take a look at yourself.
I get where you're coming from, but this reasoning was used word-for-word to justify things like the US' Patriot Act. I know that probably sounds like absurd hyperbole, but we're talking about the interaction between a government and media - I think it's relevant.
Per the article, Meta already allows users to get info from official Canadian government pages. I think that's sufficient to allow people to get information. I don't support the government trying to force meta to allow news articles, which meta would then have to pay the Canadian government for, per the new law.
You're trying to guilt people, which is very unfair, bordering on disingenous.
Canada made the decision to make it harder for non-canadian media to operate in Canada. If Canada really cares about saving lives, they can repeal C-18. It goes both ways, and the onus is on Canada for this one, not facebook.
Disagreeing with you doesn't make an argument disingenuous.
It's not about guilt, it's about practicality.
The new law is stupid, but making that a barrier to potentially saving lives is even more stupid; two wrongs don't make a right.
No, disagreeing doesn't, trying to guilt people for saying that Facebook doesn't have to kneel to Canada just because Canada is experiencing the consequences for their actions does.
There is no two wrongs, Canada did something stupid, that's one wrong, so facebook pulled out. That's not a wrong.
Canada needs to either get rid of C-18 or stop crying when they caused the problem.
People may die (even though it's Canadian news's job to inform people about disasters, not facebook), but that blood will be on the Canadian government's hands, not facebook.
Canada should have realized this would be a problem for them when they passed the law. Now they can either be responsible for those potential deaths or repeal the law.
I feel we're missing the short term problems for the long term. I hope most of us can agree that this is an emergency. So at least for now, it's best to put aside blame and bias and get people to safety. Arguing won't bring back lives lost to the squabble (nor would arguing about who to pin the deaths on).
After the dust settles, we can work on something to make sure this doesn't happen again. And a government shouldn't rely on a private corporation to spread news, so im more inclined to hope they don't fold to Facebook.
To expand on what you're saying, and which is also what I think @norney 's point is:
The government is wrong to reads title make demands when this is such a very obvious consequence of this law. I don't think it's in any way right for any government to force a private company to pay protection to another private company. The law gives Facebook a choice, and it's not reads article reckless to make the choice the government doesn't want you to make.
But Zuck can afford to waste billions on needless nonsense. Under these dire circumstances, he might look like less of an alien robot if he temporarily made an exception and splurged on some private news in order to help save less connected people. No one would mind, unless he thinks it would hurt his credibility as a villain.
Why does this serve to keep his credibility as a villain, but the Canadian government's credibility isn't at issue?
Why can't the government demand themselves to change the law immediately so that Facebook lifts the ban on posting news links? Why isn't the government concerned about looking bad if they don't react immediately?
It seems the answer is that Facebook sets a higher standard than the government and the government has even less competition than Facebook. People don't expect their government to get off their ass and do any work, even if people are dying, even if the government is the one that fucked up to begin with, because they already assume the government won't do anything and they don't feel like they have any power to change it. They don't even bother to question why they're begging Facebook to do something rather than begging the government to do something, but the answer is right there.
Of course it's pretty pathetic that anyone compared to Facebook should look bad, but in this case, seems they found a way.
I don't think the Canadian government is looking good in this scenario. I also have no idea how long it would realistically take to roll back the law, since I'm not familiar with the country's legislative process. I do gather everything's on fire right now, though. Generally, historically, democracies move more slowly than tyrannies (I'm talking about Facebook here, which is solely controlled by one person).
Any country in a legitimate emergency can probably rouse all their officials to take immediate action if the situation is dire. You think if North Korea didn't send a missile their way they wouldn't be able to make any changes they needed right away? Not that that type of action necessitates legislators action, but if it did, I bet they wouldn't waste any time.
In general, CEOs of public companies can't just do whatever they want because they have shareholders. From a quick search it looks like Zuckerberg might have set it up in a way where he was able to barely maintain majority control even though he doesn't have majority of shares, so maybe he can get away with doing things in the short term and not be called to much consequence for them by shareholders, but I'm guessing there's still some consequences to bear if he doesn't do right by the other shareholders.
Because Zuckerberg is one man and this isn't even the 100th time we've had this discussion on Facebook and how information spreads and who is accountable. They've made platitudes dozens of time to address this which have not shown in action.
I don't think this makes the Canadian government's actions good, but their short term prioritization (the people) does come off as "the right thing". I hope after this they make sure that we don't have to run into this issue again (lest it just makes them come off as worse), but this is an emergency situation. Putting aside pride and agendas and focusing on serving the people wherever possible is what a government should do.
I don't know the Canadian government's processes and I don't know if they have an equivalent of US exectutive orders. A very brief google doesn't look optimistic, so the answer may simply be that the formal process takes too much time.
do the Canadian citizens feel that way about the Canadian government? I don't want to take the political strife of the US and universally apply it everywhere.
I don't see how their short term prioritization is the people here. The fact that there would be an emergency at some point is rather foreseeable, every country has them at various times to various degrees. Of course they couldn't predict this exact emergency at this exact time, but the argument you're making could apply to any number of emergencies that could have happened and it was basically inevitable that at some point one of them was going to happen. So they chose this path, if they had good reason to believe Facebook would take this course of action, they chose to make a law that in a state of emergency, news wouldn't be able to be spread as easily on Facebook. This didn't just catch them by surprise, they knew it would happen.
I'll copy my statement from another comment.
Any country in a legitimate emergency can probably rouse all their officials to take immediate action if the situation is dire. You think if North Korea didn't send a missile their way they wouldn't be able to make any changes they needed right away? Not that that type of action necessitates legislators action, but if it did, I bet they wouldn't waste any time.
If they happen to be calling for Facebook to take action rather than their government, in a situation that their government created, then what other explanation is there for that behavior? Why hold Facebook to a higher standard than your own government, no matter what country you reside in, unless you have no faith in your government and feel you can't hold your government accountable? Even if Canadians aren't calling on Facebook to take action, it's a reflection of any other people on here that are calling for Facebook rather than the Canadian government. The people residing in the US, UK or wherever else, they think so little of their own government that they most likely assume the same of other governments, and thus blame Facebook rather than Canadian politicians. The fact that Canadian government officials are calling for Facebook to do something rather than doing something themselves seems to suggest that at the very least they themselves believe they don't have to worry about being held accountable.
Well it is their PR statement, for one:
we can talk about undertones and long term ramifications of this, but they are just that. Something to discuss long term.
I don't deny it was a lack of poor planning, or some other short sighting that they feel a need to call upon FB. But I also don't know if they were working on this and disaster struck before anything can formalize. I do know that when passing bills that you never pass everything you want in one go.
Either way, inevitable or not, I do hope they would take any means necessary to minimize casualties when disaster does strike. In comparison, the US had an entire organization prepared for a global pandemic no one could predict, and to say the Trump administration dropped the ball would be the understatement of the century. I'd take "unplanned" improvisation any day over that circus show that costed possible millions of lives.
A missle is a tangible thing with a direct time limit. Most governments have special orders for military defense. There's no need to vote on whether to stop a missle from destroying a town, in a similar way in that a police doesn't need immediate permission to arrest a citizen (they dispute those charges after arrest).
This is another situation that doesn't quite scale to the online world, especially an online world of private companies with effects on a country (and a company not based in Canada to begin with, simply operating there). The govenment doesn't have tendrils that can force websites to broadcast their messages. At least, most first world western countries don't. This is certainly a debate that should have been solved long ago
Pretty obvious; I don't want to call the people dumb, but if I see a website not functioning the way I expect, and I'm not a tech saavy users, I blame the website. This non-tech literate me doesn't care why it's not working, I just want it to work again. Some may complain on FB, some would complain to their government (be it the right or wrong channel).
I don't even think it's as deep as "they don't trust the government". They just want FB to work again. We've seen this pattern with multiple other social media websites in non-life threatening features being paywalled or removed. That's depressing for entirely tangential reasons, but I don't want to turn this into another debate over enshittification.
No, we can't just put aside blame, because that lets people abuse morality to strongarm people into doing what they want.
This is the government effectively trying to strongarm Facebook with an emergency, which is pretty scummy. If they really gave a shit, they'd repeal C-18, even at least temporarily. But they don't because they don't really give a shit I guess.
It doesn't matter if facebook could do something, they aren't obligated to kneel to Canada and accept their bullshit law just because Canada is having an emergency, it's Canada's obligation to take care of their own emergency. it's not facebook's job to.
And it's still Canadian news' job to spread this info, not facebook. They don't need or deserve facebook at all, they want it and are trying to abuse their position of crisis to get it.
We can delay it until after the fires are no longer endangering lives. Even IF they started the process to repeal the law, it would take too long for it to start re-instating FB news in the proper channels. They are abused to all hell, but the US has executive orders for these exact reasons (I don't know what Canada has for that).
I agree. But this is again a long term problem to resolve. Like it or not, there is an audience unaware that could die. We should prioritize them not dying. Again, we can assign blame afterwards.
Exactly, so Canada can stop C-18 temporarily due to emergency conditions (keyword emergency so there's no excuse for not doing it immediately). There is no action facebook needs to take.
If Canada is willing to dig in their heels with excuse after excuse even in the face of their own citizens dying, that's on them.
Can they? That's the action I don't have enough knowledge about Canadian government to comment on that. Plus, even if they repeal it, It doesn't necessarily guaranteee FB will turn it on immediately. Not if it's "only a temporary repeal". It just opens up more arguments and pointing that can be saved for afterwards.
Right or wrong, it is quicker for FB to turn it back on and then later try to argue against the charges, as I'm sure they do for every other tax measure in the world anyway. I'm not exactly worried that FB is going to suffer financially from that action.
I would think they could do an Order-in-Council to suspend implementation of C-18, but like you I am not familiar with the Canadian jurisprudence. Maybe @Loire, @cfabbro, or one of our other resident Canadians could chime in.
Thanks! I figured from a political perspective an OIC would be untenable, but was just wondering about the jurisprudential feasibility.
Facebook left due to C-18. If Canada is willing to repeal C-18, and since turning Facebook back on in Canada would be fast, as you said, they can work out a deal with Facebook given their EMERGENCY to immediately allow Canada access to Facebook immediately after the emergency repeal.
That puts the ball in Facebook's court, and then you can blame them if they say no.
But right now the ball is in Canada's court, and they aren't willing to even take the first step.
I'm struggling to understand what it is you're advocating for.
Are you advocating Facebook is supposed to fork over money to act as part of the emergency response on behalf of Canada, but not directly through a prearranged tax to operate in Canada, but instead be forced to pay media companies an uncertain and potentially unlimited amount of money (depending on how much something is linked). They're also supposed to drop what they're doing to retool whatever they may need to in order to track all of this or account for it?
Maybe you aren't advocating that, maybe you're advocating the government should call some kind of emergency session to write in an exception to the law.
Mind you, emergencies aren't unforeseen in the broad sense, they will happen, you just don't know exactly when or what type of emergency it will be, but they always happen eventually. So broadly, this circumstance was pretty foreseeable and yet seemingly not addressed in the changes to the law.
The new law is utterly and foreseeably stupid. Using that as a justification to refuse to help in a national emergency is worse, especially when FB has a long factual history of implementing emergency measures.
So why call out Facebook for obstructing emergency help rather than the government? Seems your case is basically along the lines of "Facebook might actually listen, whereas it's not reasonable to expect the government to care enough to react quickly". So punish the corporation with financial penalties because they care more than the government does. If the situation can be resolved by Facebook allowing links regardless of cost, why can't the situation also be resolved by expecting any government in such a situation to get out of bed at midnight or whenever an emergency happens and fix the problem they created?
If it's foreseeably stupid and done knowingly where it would lead to such a situation, I would argue just calling it stupid isn't enough, it's malicious. How is refusing to work when you aren't being paid worse than the government maliciously creating such a situation to begin with?
I don't like Facebook, but it feels like the Canadian government is here compelling Facebook to pay for third party services (or at least, what Canada has decided to recognize as a service) in a way in which it can't control. I'm sure if Canada was to give an exemption from the pay-for-links rule for these articles, Facebook could figure out a way to permit them.
It's a tax, isn't it? A tax to subsidize Canadian media companies. None of these hugh tech companies want to be taxed and they spend like wild (internationally) to avoid it.
Australia recently went through this same routine and eventually they settled with the tech companies: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/23/facebook-to-restore-news-pages-for-australian-users-in-coming-days.html
But that's a completely bizarre tax structure. If the government wanted to subsidize media organizations, they should simply do that. If the government wants to tax big tech, they should just do that.
Complicated tax structures frequently lead to unintended consequences. This was a blatantly obvious outcome though, so the blame falls on the Canadian government.
Can't believe I'm siding with Mark Zuckerberg here.
The Canadian government are playing a massive game of 'fuck around and find out' with this law.
This will unquestionably make things bad for reliable news in Canada. Reliable sources from within Canada are blocked while misinformation and conspiracy theories will continue to spread like wildfire. It's already begun, it's just about to get way, way, worse.
Is it reasonable to ask that people take some responsibility for their sources of information?
If life safety information is available directly from the news sources (webpages, print, and broadcast) and governmental websites, why should readers expect Facebook to provide this reliably?
Facebook trades on the implied credibility of stories exchanged among "friends and family", to the detriment of truth. I believe it would benefit everyone to get back to original sources wherever possible, even if that happens at the cost of effort to click more than one link, and pay subscription fees.
It's definitely a 3 layer issue at hand.
We're putting aside point #2 for now. Though I will make a quick quip to say that
was probably the most tone deaf and unnecessary PR response to this. They mention right above this that they activated a "safety check" feature and I felt that spoke enough for itself without the above PR.
Point #1 is an ideal situation that we've seen many times in many instances fall through as people converge to the largest websites. Websites that focus more on entertainment or interpersonal communication than being informed on the world at large. This can be perhaps mitigated long term with proper education, but we're talking on a scale of 20+ years. There's not too much on the individual side to do short term to rectify this. Simply discourage people from receiving news on their informal social media with no incentive to fact check and to create a formal news feed (sadly I feel this solution may be leveraged by, yet again, another private company. As opposed to users learning to curate their own news)
Point #3 is definitely the largest blunder, and this article seems to indirectly imply that emergency channels were insufficient; if citizens are complaining about not being able to link to news on social media, they either feel emergency broadcasts were inadequate, and/or there is a certain internal need to broadcast to friends. The latter is more of a social media problem, but the government can do something about the former.
I don't even know what the best snarky response to this snippet is lol
Maybe I’ll start with
Every time I load up Facebook, it’s a ghost town. Out of the hundreds of friends I have, maybe one or two regularly share things? I get that maybe there there is some activity going on in niche or local groups, but the whole thing feels like smoke and mirrors.
These Canadian officials complaining in the article were probably trained in how to use social media a decade ago, and haven’t really evolved.
I'm getting strong Leopards Ate My Face vibes from this.
We just went through a wildfire in our community a month ago. Our sources of info were a) watching the sky fill with smoke and turn red, b) seeing people in our subdivision packing up, c) getting an emergency evacuation alert directly on our phones (we'd already left) and for those who were slow, d) neighbors and first responders going door to door to make sure everyone was notified.
Dont know why one would need facebook's news links to figure out its time to leave.