Meta’s news ban is preventing Canadians from sharing vital information about the wildfires ripping through western Canada::Canadians are calling on Meta to lift its news ban so they can share news about the wildfires in the Northwest Territories and British Columbia.

  • DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Lol Meta has some good PR. The government did not stop Meta from sharing news. They stopped them from profiting off someone else’s work without paying for it. Meta was told they had to start paying and decided to stop showing it entirely.

    • yaksmen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Government telling meta and Google they’d have to pay to link has led to this entirely predictable result, and the companies said they would block links since very early on in the process. Independent experts (e.g., Michael Geist) also said that C18 was a bad idea.

      It’s ridiculous to complain about someone complying with laws that you (the government) drafted and passed.

    • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      They told Meta that they had to pay to so much as host links to news sites on their platforms.

      ie they had to pay to literally direct users to news sites, where news sites would make money off advertising to them, allowing the news sites to double dip. If anyone’s got good PR, it’s the news sites (would you believe it, the news sites have good connections with the press?)

      There were ways to stop Meta from scraping news sites, but they decided to effectively stop them from even sharing news. They could’ve stopped the bill at purely “reproducing” news, but no, they got greedy and decided to make them pay for the privilege to give news sites free advertising. Why on earth would Meta agree to that, and why is it surprising that they just turned around and said no?

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also to be extra extra super clear, the news sites ALWAYS has control over the view of snippets and previews and indexing via HTML headers, HTTP headers, and robots.txt. They’re just pretending they didn’t have full control over how that was displayed.

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I seriously do not understand where this idea of “profiting off someone else’s work” even comes from. I am on Meta’s side here 100%.

    • steltek@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I didn’t pay much attention when this was happening. Are there size requirements or something? How does lemmy.ca or sh.itjust.works avoid paying?

      • Spotlight7573@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s no set size but there needs to be an imbalance of power:

        https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-18/royal-assent

        Application 6 This Act applies in respect of a digital news intermediary if, having regard to the following factors, there is a significant bargaining power imbalance between its operator and news businesses:

        (a) the size of the intermediary or the operator;

        (b) whether the market for the intermediary gives the operator a strategic advantage over news businesses; and

        (c) whether the intermediary occupies a prominent market position.

    • settinmoon@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I hate meta and I actually went out of my way to get my family and friends off of their platforms, but in this case I don’t think they’re in the wrong. Even if we roll with the logic that they should be paying for these links, then what is wrong with them deciding to not profit off of the links now by not showing them? Isn’t that the right thing to do?

      It seems to me the news agencies and the Canadian government just wants extra revenue, and when their plan didn’t go as expected they’re now just crying and bit**ing about facing consequences of their actions.