• codesmith@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    1 year ago
    1. Fuck Meta.
    2. This particular issue is one where the Canadian government has made a terrible law that deserves pushback.
    3. Fuck Meta.
    • CoderKat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Strongly agreed. I think a lot of commenters in this thread are getting derailed by their feelings towards Meta. This is truly a dumb, dumb law and it’s extremely embarrassing that it even passed.

      It’s not just Meta. No company wants to comply with this poorly thought out law, written by people who apparently have no idea how the internet works.

      I think most of the people in the comments cheering this on haven’t read the bill. It requires them to pay news sites to link to the news site. Which is utterly insane. Linking to news sites is a win win. It means Facebook or Google gets to show relevant content and the news site gets users. This bill is going to hurt Canadian news sites because sites like Google and Facebook will avoid linking to them.

      • The Dark Lord ☑️@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right. It’s like if I stand at a street corner telling people to try out a local restaurant. And then the local restaurant says that I should be charged to recommend them. It makes no sense.

        I hate Meta, but this is just a dumb law.

        • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s worse.

          The preview Facebook or whoever is providing is the content the site literally explicitly provided for the purpose of linking to their website. It’s like the restaurant gave you a stack of flyers then tried to charge you for handing them out.

          • NotMyOldRedditName@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Is it actually a provided preview, or a preview they are generating.

            I know part of the legit problem is when a website summarizes something and then people don’t click on the link, which reduces ad revenue.

            But maybe there’s a provided summary (which should be fine) and the other way it gets summarized (which could arguably be deemed bad)

            But making them pay to just link with is batshit insane.

      • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t disagree.

        But where I see a small nugget of good intent in this law is in the fact that I’d be willing to wager a very large percentage of people read the blurb on Facebook, which summarizes the entire story, and never click over to the actual article, thereby robbing the news site of ad revenue.

        This isn’t (supposed to) be about paying to post links. It’s about paying to summarize their content so that users don’t have to leave Facebook.

      • phazed09@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This will essentially break Google News and the like in Canada. It’s idiotic in so many ways.

  • phazed09@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    People aren’t seeing the forest for the trees here. Yeah, nobody likes Meta, but the larger impact of Bill C18 will be that sources like Google and other large aggregators will stop allowing links to legitimate news sources, and instead be flooded by blogspam and misinformation.

    People won’t suddenly be navigating to The Toronto Star when they don’t get news on the latest updates in say the Corona virus in their immediate Google results, they’ll just continue to click on through to whatever sketchy source manages to SEO their way to the top instead.

    • RoboRay@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is a problem that the “legitimate news sources” created and they will need to ask to remove the laws they asked for in the first place if they want their viewership to come back.

  • lemillionsocks@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh no. Millions of users are going to have to get their news from off facebook! What facebook stuff they do see is going to require they actually click through and view the website instead of reading a blurb and a headline so the site gets its deserved page views.

    • Goronmon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well, they won’t be able to get their news from “news outlets” specifically linked on Facebook. They will still be able to get their news from other sources on Facebook.

      Not sure if that’s actually an improvement though.

  • Bad_Company_Daps@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly I just hope this backfires and less Canadians end up using Facebook, we’d definitely be much better off

    • Bishma@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I haven’t knowingly used a Facebook/Meta product in many years and my life is better for it.

      • therealpygon@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Me too. Facebook is the craigslist of Social Networks. Hard to go more than two posts without running into a scam or a business.

        • Rising5315@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I used to work consumer help desk and 90% of the actual virus problems people brought in their machines for were from Facebook ads.

          The site is riddled.

            • AlternateRoute@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well here is the law…

              It makes no word of for profit / non profit, it defines the intermediary posting links as basically anything more popular than the news outlet they are linking to and gives the media outlets all sorts of power to complain and escalate if they think linking is unfair.

              You can go read the law?

              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.
              
              • Grant_M@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Are you making money personally by posting media links on Lemmy?

                No.

                This is 100% about billionaire anti-democracy bad actors having control over what people see. And profiting by doing so.

                It’s UNBELIEVABLE how zillionaires Zuckerberg and Google have managed to convince people that their own crappy behaviors are all to blame on the Liberal Canadian government. It didn’t have to be this way. Zuckerberg and Google CHOSE THIS.

                • AlternateRoute@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Didn’t say the bill applied to users AT ALL but does apply to the intermediary hosting the links… IE lemmy.ca could be targeted due to the vague broad definition. If Lemmy.ca became a popular source of information news outlets could demand arbitration or try to harass lemmy.ca legally. Which even if there was nothing for them to win could be costly.

  • ppb1701@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    @aranym Can we get this globally?? Then perhaps more people would get their news from actual sources and not blindly trust a random link on a social platform.

    • Goronmon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Isn’t this the opposite of what’s happening? Facebook posts can’t contain links to “actual sources” but can contain “random links”?

  • Papamousse@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Seriously, I have FB since 2008 or so, and I don’t care at all about this. I don’t have my news through FB…