Meta is so unwilling to pay for news under a new Canadian law that it’s starting to block it on Facebook and Instagram in that country::The rollout of the news ban on Facebook and Instagram for users in Canada will take place over the next few weeks.
No one here is realizing the ridiculousness of telling an internet company that DRIVES TRAFFIC to journalism they must pay for the privilege of sending them the traffic. I’m not a fan of FB, but extorting a company for sending you business is like a reverse protection racket. Whether it’s FB or Google, or Duck Duck Go, it’s asinine.
As I understood it from a previous incarnation of this topic where it involved Google it’s less nonsensical than it sounds (at least it was in that specific case, this one may be different, so take this post with a grain of salt).
The thing these media companies have issue with is that their content is displayed on the social media website’s feed, usually in the form of a headline and a short summary. Many people will only read the headline and this summary and will never actually visit the website of the media company, so they can’t monetize these users through the ads on their website or through subscription services. Meanwhile Google/Facebook get to extract value from their content for free.
Of course by that logic you could maybe also say that users should get paid for posting links as they have added their own value by curating the content displayed on the social media site, but they don’t have a team of lobbyists. :)
Wait, this article makes it sound like Meta would have to pay for other people posting links on Facebook to news websites. If that’s the case, that’s nuts. Are they gonna try doing this with Reddit and Lemmy too, or does it just apply to Facebook? Cause that’s a great way to get Canadian news sites banned from everything on the entire net.
The law is dumb, so I hope they don’t pay and these news orgs die because no one will know about them in a few years.
So it’s you that gets his news from Facebook . I was wondering who it was.
Nah. I’m not on Facebook anymore. But this law could easily affect places like reddit and lemmy and mastodon, twitter, and the rest of the internet. It sets a bad precedent.
This MF still worshipping tech bosses like it’s 2008.
I have no love for tech bosses.
Let me ask you - do you think we shouldn’t be allowed to share links to news articles on Lemmy?
I think if a business is monetizing news, they should pay the news org.
Why do you think FB should have a free right to others’ work?
I see. So the end of the free and open internet. And all hail the pay to view internet. Want information? News? Weather? To interact with anyone else? Gotta pay up for every interaction.
Tim Berners Lee would be rolling in his grave (if he were dead)
Meta is unwilling to pay for anything. They don’t pay taxes on their benefits in Canada either, after having swallowed almost 100% of the online ads business. But they’ll keep talking about how good for Canada and Canadians they are.
“They trust me. Dumb fucks!” – Mark Zuckerberg
Canadian residents can access news online by going directly to news websites, using mobile news applications, and subscribing to preferred publishers.
Lol. Or you know. Lemmy!!
but, but, then who will filter the news they’re fed with, so that they only get exposed to opinions they “like”, thus reinforcing whatever polarized view they have? Why would they want to access ANY news??
Facebook tried this in Australia, but backed down after a week, and now pay a significant amount to news organisations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Media_Bargaining_Code
Google and Facebook aren’t going to cut themselves out of such a big slice of interaction, they’re just throwing a tantrum and hoping the government caves.
The two laws really aren’t the same. With the Australian law, a last minute amendment allowed digital platforms and news publishers to directly negotiate deals, which is when Facebook “backed down.” The Canadian law imposes a specific link tax
deleted by creator
Good for Canada. Being more aktiv and critical in reading and searching for news is good and way better than getting “presented” with the news Meta selectively wants you to see.
Google has been fear-mongering hard about this law, which is why I’ll have to assume it’s actually a good thing. I think some enforcement of balance between journalists and the monolithic platform squeezing them is a step in the right direction, although there are some legitimate concerns about unintended consequences.
