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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments