You must log in or register to comment.

ultraj92 t1_itdpx82 wrote

The faster news is no longer on Facebook, the better.


NeuroticKnight t1_itdy3w2 wrote

or more like only news from FB partners are there. Oh you want to share news from Jacobin, sorry, not a partner, here is an article from fox news instead.


anthonykantara t1_ite3jry wrote

Most independent outlets in Canada are speaking out against this law.

I run a media company, we used social media like Facebook to give us a fighting chance against the heavily funded traditional outlets.

This cuts off one of our main traffic sources which in turn cuts off our funding.


ctimmermans t1_itficmz wrote

You are not independent if you require Facebook for traffic and making ends meet. That makes you dependent. On Facebook.


MrMarklar t1_itfrp82 wrote

Right? They also depend on their electricity provider, internet service provider, and also depend on breathable air, drinking water and nutrition

Independent journalism is truly dead


ctimmermans t1_itfrtqe wrote

Yes, but they can easily switch providers or get the water elsewhere and transport it to the office. Apparently with Facebook that’s not an option


MrMarklar t1_itfsj5k wrote

They want to spread their independent journalistic work through a platform that reaches the most people. It doesn't make it any less independent.

Let's say facebook said you can't write about X or you always have to meantion Y in your articles in order to be allowed on their platform. If they complied, then they would cease to be independent. But that's not the case here, facebook is just a means to reach an audience for their independent news outlet without any sort of influence being enforced by Meta on their work.

It's not a hard concept to grasp.


ctimmermans t1_itfspml wrote

I understand the concept. I’m just saying it has consequences (especially longer term) which are not in their favor.

Like being dependent on Facebook.


yut7 t1_itfyksj wrote

Facebook no way stops them from disseminating their context outside of facebook.

They are free to open TV channel, YouTube channel, start their newspaper, start magazine, build own website and thousand other things.

Facebook is a successful platform, one of most successful ones in entire human history.


knockingatthegate t1_itj0kv8 wrote

For “successful” read “exploitative” and “counterproductive to the aims of a healthy and sustainable civil society.”


anti-torque t1_itgg5yb wrote

It's not a hard concept.

But when the execution lines you up next to an ad for pizzagate, what was that concept, again?


MrMarklar t1_itgisiq wrote

Sorry, but I don't get your point (no offense). I think you're saying good articles and shitty articles exist side by side on the same platform, but I don't know what you are implying with this. It doesn't make the aforementioned independant news sites any more corrupt or less valuable (make them even more so)


anti-torque t1_itgk1rk wrote

The platform they choose delegitimizes their own content, due to association.

I know I would likely never go to a fb link for news. I have issues going to small businesses who can't figure out how to make a wordpress page, leaving it up to fb and yelp to tell me who they are.


MrMarklar t1_itglkxr wrote

I don't think OP means they have their whole business on Facebook. It's just a means to share their articles. All serious businesses that depend on online engagement have pages on Facebook and other social media that point to their websites, it's just a nobrainer.

While I don't browse facebook at all, lots of people still do.

What's the "proper" way to grow your business online, astrosurfing on reddit?


anti-torque t1_itgml4w wrote

lol... it's valid to direct traffic away from fb, I guess.

There are a lot of local businesses who do only have these fb profiles as their business page. It's pretty annoying going from an interwebs experience where I'm just cruising along, to this fb page that tells me nothing, except what a neat pumpikin carving some kids did today... at this restaurant that has no known menu online.


anthonykantara t1_itfnhl0 wrote

That’s not what independent means. It has nothing to do with source of traffic.

How do you think digital media outlets get their traffic? TV or newspaper stands?


ctimmermans t1_itfrrnb wrote

It has everything to do with dependence. If you are dependent on 1 traffic source you tend to cater to that traffic source, thus losing your independence.


MrMarklar t1_itftb9e wrote

You are using the word "dependent" and "independence" in their literal sense, in a completely different context.

"The reach of an independent media outlet depends on a free platform." is not a contradictory sentence, but you are trying to make it seem like it is, and that's dishonest.


>you tend to cater

That's a very safe way to form a baseless personal opinion.


r3zza92 t1_itfqm89 wrote

Same thing happened in aus. The big guys got deals the small guys got fucked.


anthonykantara t1_itg5hf5 wrote

That’s literally it. Facebook rather sit down with the main few than sit with thousands of smaller ones.


r3zza92 t1_itg7zkc wrote

Facebook threatened to pull news for everyone same as they’re doing in Canada. Googles the one who caved which forced Facebook to follow suit. It’s all Fucking Murdochs fault though, well here it is anyway.


dshdhjsdhjd t1_itfh7tn wrote

But, what kind of independent outlet?
If it's a qanon type, well????


anthonykantara t1_itfnlwc wrote

In our country independent means not owned or affiliated with any political party or politician. 80% of outlets here are linked to a political entity.


Allusionator t1_itgw31n wrote

Nobody needs media that isn’t regional. The news business was a mistake, having people worry about issues they can only know the first thing about that are thousands of miles away is to our collective detriment.


RedNotch t1_itepuyb wrote

You’d normally think that right? But honestly with news leaving it would mean misinformation would take their place and have that much more space to fester in.


Tidalwave-1103 t1_itg1fu5 wrote

Absolutely, no more outlets for information other than what the government can control. Oh wait, that means Reddit too huh? Hmmmm


MajorHowes t1_itdrex7 wrote

Who looks to Facebook for news anyway?


BEAVER_ATTACKS t1_itdsm2r wrote

Old people and dumb people. Humanity is dumb and overworked and uneducated in recognizing credible sources, and the predators that own the world prey on them.


ItchyK t1_itdxsdv wrote

Honestly, I think it's more than people would like to admit. Everyone will overlook the fact that they looked at that one article on Facebook and probably start quoting it as fact. But then they assume The other people are just using it more. That one article wasn't a big deal to them, But that is essentially how the whole monster works.


xtremeyou t1_itdvmv1 wrote

I wouldn't say dumb but uninformed. Also I'd say alot of this is just pure ignorance and not wanting to feel stupid learning something new/being set in old ways.


[deleted] t1_iteu259 wrote

This is very true, also, people are so misinformed these days. People tend to gravitate toward an "echo chamber" that keeps feeding them, their own ideological views, this then in turn, prevents them from growing, and expanding, their consciousness.

Note: I'm not pointing fingers at any specific outlet, or ideological view, I'm just saying this in a broad spectrum.


rushmc1 t1_itekf18 wrote

No, at this point its more dumb. There's been plenty of time for people to adapt now (decades).


xtremeyou t1_itenkam wrote

The fact you think that either means you're stupid, or you're so close minded and just as bad as they're


Rook22Ti t1_iteiw6t wrote

Incredibly succinct description of our current predicament.


ugottabekiddingmee t1_itemzn7 wrote

I get dumb but why old? What does that have to do with it? That's like saying it only fools Germans. It makes no sense. The majority of people that surround me are over 40 and half are over 50. Only a couple are on Facebook because it's a cesspool. I'm wondering where you draw your conclusions from?


Prestigious_Cold_756 t1_itfh9w9 wrote

He probably meant that it’s mostly old people that are still using Facebook. It’s the website where you go to see posts from your parents. Young people don’t really hang out there anymore.


Un_Nationalist3489 t1_itek3as wrote

There are lots of countries outside of the developed world who use facebook as its cheaper and more available than other alternatives. That does not constitute “dumb”.


BEAVER_ATTACKS t1_iteliyk wrote

Anyone who uses facebook is dumb. That's the way it is. We existed just fine without its superficial connectiveness. We don't need an alternative, it's built into our dna.


Incubus_Priest t1_itduq79 wrote

i dont think thats it entirely. as weve seen with the mass adoption of the internet legacy media tries to claw its fingers into every social media platform wether it gets views/clicks or not. i mean look at any site that allows you to see actual views/clicks and theirs tons of news outlet posts/vids/streams etc with hilariously tiny numbers. youtube is full of official cnn/msnbc/fox etc videos with views in the hundreds, not hundreds of thousands, hundreds. yet they still crank out content


The_Real_BenFranklin t1_itdy6sw wrote

People don’t “look” for news there, but they passively consume their news from Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/wherever.


texasspacejoey t1_itfzs67 wrote

>People don’t “look” for news there,

Are you joking? Studies show that more people use tiktoc as a search engine than Google now. Ofcourse people look for news on Facebook....


TheSeansei t1_itfbgzq wrote

Where have you been for like the last seven years? People getting their news from Facebook has caused a lot of problems related to democracy in the US.


gizamo t1_itdzqn1 wrote

The people who used to look to Fox News....before Fox wasn't alt-right enough for them anymore. Not that Fox didn't get more alt-right, tho.


Poop_Noodl3 t1_itgm6r5 wrote

The people least likely to interpret it correctly.


Crack_uv_N0on t1_itdskvw wrote

So Meta is throwing a hissy fit. It should have done the adult thing and asked to be included, as Google did.
It can negotiate with news outlets, just as it did after the Australian law took effect.


TibiaKing t1_itegb20 wrote

This is good for Canada. Meta applications not providing news (which by now is well understood most of what it provides is misinformation) is objectively favourable than having them provide it.


Insterstellar t1_itf6jmc wrote

Once they start blocking news they will probably also block some non-news items too because their algorithm mis-identified it as news.


Icy_Mouse_313 t1_itf86cc wrote

Yeah, when they did it in Australia, Facebook blocked some emergency hotline during an emergency. Facebook looked pretty shit when it happened


bak2redit t1_itf83ls wrote

Ok m confused about these laws, is Facebook needing to pay for links to news outlets posted by it's users?

Doesn't that already financially benefit the news outlets due to their own ads being seen when someone clicks the link? Isn't this like double dipping?


Crack_uv_N0on t1_itfhvtw wrote

The referenced Australia law, which the Canadian law mimics,requires paying the news sources a fee. What FB, Google, et al are doing contributes to a loss of revenue from advertisers. Having to click on a link, which is voluntary, is not the same as having ads staring the readers in the face. If it was, you would not be seeing sources requiring a subscription, some trying to entice with a limited number of freebies, others to read even one. Printed editions have demonstrably thinner because of this revenue loss. In the meantime, FB, Google, etc. are benefitting from others’ labors without compensating. This did not begin with FB and Google..They have made it worse.


bak2redit t1_itgdbst wrote

Maybe instead making laws to protect depreciating industries, those industries should be forced to evolve their business models.

Policy like this slow down progress.


SomeDudeNamedMark t1_itdv7m8 wrote

Imagine Meta thinking people would consider this a BAD thing 😂


Macasumba t1_itdv54w wrote

Meta is garbage. CBC is great.


MoreGaghPlease t1_ite8z3m wrote


Now what do you think will happen when outlets like CBC and the Toronto Star become financially dependent on Meta, as C-18 proposes?

What do you think will happen when the big guys like Postmedia and Quebecor sign side-deals with Meta for a lower click rate than the regulated amount (C-18 specifically allows for this), making their content cheaper to for Meta than small independents?


NeuroticKnight t1_itepwyx wrote

I know FB bad circlejerk is common these days.

But link taxes would end open internet.

Its cute when FB or Google needs to pay for every link.

What happens when duckduckgo is asked, or other smaller platforms.


Millon1000 t1_itffy71 wrote

Governments everywhere are sinking their claws in the internet and people don't have the foresight so see why that's a bad thing.


PsychologicalPay6049 t1_itdygwh wrote

Oh no! Where will my mom get her right-leaning largely inaccurate fear mongering clickbait from if they do it?


maydarnothing t1_itdx2mj wrote

are we supposed to feel sorry?


NeuroticKnight t1_itdxzfb wrote

Yes, because the arrangement would stiffle small and independent news creators, if facebook can only allow sharing of listed partners. Same happened with google.


DreadPirate777 t1_itdy09v wrote

In today’s news, Facebook shoots its other foot. Again.


0000alex0000 t1_itdyzq7 wrote

Facebook is like Russia. Full of empty threats. Like who the fuck goes to Facebook for news?


Syphor t1_iti4h19 wrote

More than you'd think, unfortunately. Tons of people share whatever random shit their friends share without any more thinking aside from the "if my friend shared it it must be true" thing. I've seen people insist up and down that something can't be happening because otherwise it would be plastered across their facebook feeds - as they also insist things are happening because it is. Like "voting fraud is a huge problem!" ... doesn't matter what the real numbers are, they see it shared and re-shared therefore it is a big issue.I see the same sort of confirmation bias show up with other reporting, though. Someone gets abducted, it's big news, for good reason. But in a country the size of the USA, there's bound to be a few happenings here and there - I see people see this reporting and instead of "Well, we had two in the country in about three months, and they were both in high-crime areas far away from me" it becomes "everyone is out to abduct everybody!" with paranoia to match.

As a species, we seem to be ridiculously bad at actual statistics. >.> (Better schooling on actually thinking about it would help, though)


Adorable-Slip2260 t1_itds4na wrote

LMAO they should respond by blocking that collection of giant douche bags who work for Facebook, and the products douche bags who give them money buy operation and sale in Canada.


OverPot t1_itdyo0u wrote

Facebook is lame but revenue sharing? Fuck that they get ad revenue from the traffic provided by Facebook... Ricj people bullshit though.


semitope t1_itevzl4 wrote

Always seemed weird because it is a bit of free advertising for the news outlets. If they host the news rather than linking to it, then sure. But it's very strange to charge a search engine or social media platform for getting attention. Why just news? why not all the other sites people find through these platforms?

I'm not sure what FB was doing though. I have never seen a news tab.


kymotsujason t1_ite1dc1 wrote

That might actually be one of the best things Meta does this year.


SnooHesitations8849 t1_itdsuiw wrote

Seems like Suckerberg never learns. If he had made a deal with Apple 5 years ago, he would not in this shithole


ThunderPigGaming t1_ite5aqg wrote

If you operate a small hyperlocal news outlet you had better develop an app pronto. One with a forum if possible.


The420Turtle t1_itebtbk wrote

dont threaten me with a good time


JerryNicklebag t1_itg9vnc wrote

Canada should just block Facebook and get it over with


DeepTh0tt t1_ite88hl wrote

Can we speed up the blocking of news on Facebook platforms?


BrokeMacMountain t1_itfsxot wrote

im fine with this. In return, we should ban facebook / meta and all its services.


Verix19 t1_itgdb7b wrote

You mean Canada won't get partisan right wing made-up news anymore??? Wtf?


cgernaat119 t1_itgemw5 wrote

Promise? I’m calling my senator as we speak to draft this legislation here.


anti-torque t1_itgfryx wrote

Oh no... whatever will Canada do?


throwawayqw123456 t1_itgqm2z wrote

The US backs down to every single one of these threats. Don't be like the US Canada


HeadStarboard t1_itdu9am wrote

Facebook needs to be broken up. Govt oversight asleep at wheel on this.


Incubus_Priest t1_itduxhp wrote

1st world govts have zero interest in breaking up big business and hasnt cared in decades. their was a vague attempt to break up microsoft by the usa, they failed and said yolo.


Ialwayslie005 t1_ite4w9m wrote

Can they block news content in the US too? ...Please?


April_Fabb t1_ite7kih wrote

Why isn't Meta/Facebook treated like a criminal organisation?


ctudor t1_itea60h wrote

So block it!


jBlairTech t1_itebb60 wrote

Oh, no- more pictures and gifs of cute cats and dogs riding skateboards! The horror!

/s, obviously. Less news is good news.


chris2155 t1_itebn4z wrote

News content is shit any ways now so what ever


tokenblacxx t1_iteh9rq wrote

This is a good thing, right?


DevAnalyzeOperate t1_itejt7u wrote

Nobody cares lol and while people hate this legislation in general, literally nobody could give less of a fuck about a meta boycott.

If anything this is probably a political win for the people pushing the legislation. I mean that sincerely, I don't think Meta really understands how it's perceived. If I were in Meta's shoes I would lay it on thick with the astroturfing, I wouldn't be publicly opposed lol.


WhenImTryingToHide t1_itek9qg wrote

Why does it seem like everywhere else in the world is awake to the damage social media companies are causing and they're taking steps to fix it?


rushmc1 t1_itekces wrote

Can we get them to block their "news" in the U.S. too??


Crawgdor t1_itewgrl wrote

Do it, cowards


rahkinto t1_itfgqi6 wrote

...thank you..?


Prestigious_Cold_756 t1_itfgtg0 wrote

So THATS how you make facebook stop spreading misinformation! Every country take note!


Rangirocks99 t1_itfm7kr wrote

Lucky Canada. Can Australia be next and maybe ban Facebook in total


mascachopo t1_itfryuu wrote

Google has also done this before, eventually they had to agree on doing what the institutions request them to do as it’s logic.


mia_elora t1_itfthis wrote

If I were Canada, I'd take them up on that offer.


fleeting_FOX t1_itg0a69 wrote

Great, we never needed Facebook to provide news to Canadians.


Acherstrom t1_itg3c1a wrote

Promises promises. Meta can go and get f’d.


beflacktor t1_itg3zrj wrote

yay! u mean I can actually see my friends posts now?


chitownadmin t1_itg6e8v wrote

I'm so glad I got rid of all of them. I am free!!!


No_Assist2955 t1_ith6ixg wrote

Getting your news from Face Book is suspect anyway. This doesn't sound like a bad thing.


ohjoyousones t1_itdzi0r wrote

Great. They have no business allowing misinformation posts pretending to be legitimate News anyway.


usgrant7977 t1_ite3uck wrote

Dystopian cyberpunk world here we come. Mega corps publicly flouting the laws of a nation.


Morty_A2666 t1_itg0dci wrote

What kind of anti-social company would use News access as hostage... oh wait it's Facebook.


MBhavin t1_itenvcx wrote

Don’t promise us good time Fuckerberg


Black_RL t1_iteq95n wrote

Good! News shouldn’t be there anyways!


tmdblya t1_itev423 wrote

“I see this as a total win!”


error201 t1_itewbxz wrote

No. Don't. Stop.