Honestly this should've been an expected outcome of the bill. These kinds of regulations don't really benefit the little guys. They're made with the well-established major publishers in mind and...
Honestly this should've been an expected outcome of the bill. These kinds of regulations don't really benefit the little guys. They're made with the well-established major publishers in mind and that's about it.
I agree with the previous discussions on this topic that the government should've just directly subsidized the media if they wanted to make it more sustainable. It's a bizarre structure to expect tech companies to pay for links on their platforms.
Equally, I feel like the discourse on whether or not Meta and Google are "protesting" against the bill is odd. If I go to a store, and there's a candy bar that cost $5, and I choose not to buy it,...
Equally, I feel like the discourse on whether or not Meta and Google are "protesting" against the bill is odd. If I go to a store, and there's a candy bar that cost $5, and I choose not to buy it, I'm not protesting or retaliating against the store. That's the choice, and I made one of the two choices.
The Canadian government passed a law that says "if you want to have links to news on your platform, you have to pay", and the companies said "I'm good" to it. Is that necessarily retaliation? Is it not just following the law you passed?
Fwiw, it definitely was and was repeatedly pointed put by independent content creators that opposed the bill. I don't have any connections to Canada and even I encountered discussion from Canadian...
Honestly this should've been an expected outcome of the bill.
Fwiw, it definitely was and was repeatedly pointed put by independent content creators that opposed the bill. I don't have any connections to Canada and even I encountered discussion from Canadian creators on how this bill would end up negatively affecting them.
This is my no means a retort to your comment. But the above quote gave me flashbacks to twitters "state sponsored media" tag. Are they still doing that? I left the platform shortly after
the government should've just directly subsidized the media if they wanted to make it more sustainable
This is my no means a retort to your comment. But the above quote gave me flashbacks to twitters "state sponsored media" tag. Are they still doing that? I left the platform shortly after
I've never used Twitter, so I can't comment on that. My point about subsidizing news companies is there are plenty of ways governments can encourage journalism if they care. Journalists could pay...
I've never used Twitter, so I can't comment on that.
My point about subsidizing news companies is there are plenty of ways governments can encourage journalism if they care. Journalists could pay lower taxes, and journalistic business expenses could be subsidized. Increase protections for whistleblowers to empower the third estate. The bill could have even required social media algorithms to favour news articles from licensed publishers.
I feel like if they legislate this way, it shows Big Tech to take the nation seriously - not the industry. Directly subsidizing media solves the problem almost entirely but doesn't give in to...
I feel like if they legislate this way, it shows Big Tech to take the nation seriously - not the industry. Directly subsidizing media solves the problem almost entirely but doesn't give in to Canada's short-man syndrome in the global economic markets.
Why should any companies take Canada seriously? Canada isn't a massive market, and not running news articles on Facebook isn't going to break the platform.
Why should any companies take Canada seriously? Canada isn't a massive market, and not running news articles on Facebook isn't going to break the platform.
I think that's the point - these multi-national tech corporation don't actually care about the Canadian market much and my assumption is that the legislation was a way for the government to feel...
I think that's the point - these multi-national tech corporation don't actually care about the Canadian market much and my assumption is that the legislation was a way for the government to feel powerful or important.
I'm not saying that it worked, but that's what the motives feel like.
Of the three news outlets interviewed, one only posted on Facebook and had no other web presence. One only discussed how many impressions their articles had on Facebook, and the third only talked...
Of the three news outlets interviewed, one only posted on Facebook and had no other web presence. One only discussed how many impressions their articles had on Facebook, and the third only talked about Instagram engagement metrics.
It makes sense that these tiny organizations that only exist within the Meta ecosystem would see an effect. However, I can't help but think that this is a very small and very cherrypicked assortment of news outlets, especially tailored to imply that vulnerable minorities are suffering because Meta can't profit from them.
Honestly this should've been an expected outcome of the bill. These kinds of regulations don't really benefit the little guys. They're made with the well-established major publishers in mind and that's about it.
I agree with the previous discussions on this topic that the government should've just directly subsidized the media if they wanted to make it more sustainable. It's a bizarre structure to expect tech companies to pay for links on their platforms.
Equally, I feel like the discourse on whether or not Meta and Google are "protesting" against the bill is odd. If I go to a store, and there's a candy bar that cost $5, and I choose not to buy it, I'm not protesting or retaliating against the store. That's the choice, and I made one of the two choices.
The Canadian government passed a law that says "if you want to have links to news on your platform, you have to pay", and the companies said "I'm good" to it. Is that necessarily retaliation? Is it not just following the law you passed?
Fwiw, it definitely was and was repeatedly pointed put by independent content creators that opposed the bill. I don't have any connections to Canada and even I encountered discussion from Canadian creators on how this bill would end up negatively affecting them.
This is my no means a retort to your comment. But the above quote gave me flashbacks to twitters "state sponsored media" tag. Are they still doing that? I left the platform shortly after
I've never used Twitter, so I can't comment on that.
My point about subsidizing news companies is there are plenty of ways governments can encourage journalism if they care. Journalists could pay lower taxes, and journalistic business expenses could be subsidized. Increase protections for whistleblowers to empower the third estate. The bill could have even required social media algorithms to favour news articles from licensed publishers.
This isn't relevant to the topic at hand, just a nitpick, but journalists are the fourth estate, not the third
Thanks for the correction!
I feel like if they legislate this way, it shows Big Tech to take the nation seriously - not the industry. Directly subsidizing media solves the problem almost entirely but doesn't give in to Canada's short-man syndrome in the global economic markets.
Why should any companies take Canada seriously? Canada isn't a massive market, and not running news articles on Facebook isn't going to break the platform.
I think that's the point - these multi-national tech corporation don't actually care about the Canadian market much and my assumption is that the legislation was a way for the government to feel powerful or important.
I'm not saying that it worked, but that's what the motives feel like.
Of the three news outlets interviewed, one only posted on Facebook and had no other web presence. One only discussed how many impressions their articles had on Facebook, and the third only talked about Instagram engagement metrics.
It makes sense that these tiny organizations that only exist within the Meta ecosystem would see an effect. However, I can't help but think that this is a very small and very cherrypicked assortment of news outlets, especially tailored to imply that vulnerable minorities are suffering because Meta can't profit from them.