this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
54 points (93.5% liked)

Canada

7202 readers
357 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The NWT government and city of Yellowknife are describing in tweets, Instagram messages etc. how to search key evacuation information on CPAC and CBC. The broadcast carriers have a duty to carry emergency information, but Meta and X are blocking links.

While internet access is reportedly limited in Yellowknife, residents are finding this a barrier to getting current and accurate information. Even links to CBC radio are blocked.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cheery_coffee@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My opinion is no, they shouldn’t be beholden to paying for links and having to share certain links. That’s not good policy.

The real issue is whether these apps should carry emergency alerts and information, which is a much better way to frame it because that’s the actual issue here.

My bet is if there were an emergency broadcast protocol Facebook would adopt it, it would increase the legitimacy of their platform and build up some political equity they sorely lack right now.

[–] moody@lemmings.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The real issue is whether these apps should carry emergency alerts and information

Should they? Absolutely. Should they be forced to? I don't think so.

But, it seems like an easy gesture of goodwill to do it, if there's a system in place for it.

[–] cheery_coffee@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah I’m in agreement. Plus if you’re going to force one , how do you decide who else? Should Etsy need energy alerts?

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's more than time that we show these private platforms that they can't act however they want if they want to do business in our country without paying a cent of taxes on the profit they make here. Yes they should be forced to pay by our rules or face the prospect of being outright banned in Canada.

[–] moody@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We made the rules, and now they're playing by them. You can force them to pay for news links, but you can't force them to display news links and make them pay for them.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We absolutely could, if they had the choice between paying taxes on all profit made out of Canadian content OR not being allowed to access the Canadian market at all they would quickly bend the knee because it would hurt them directly, the issue is that the current rule doesn't hurt them enough, people still go on Facebook to check non news content.

[–] moody@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But my point is you have to legislate new (potentially very unpopular) rules for them to follow if you want to do things like that. We put forth new rules that they didn't like, and they're following the rules.

As much as we rag on Facebook, and as harmful as they may be, they're playing by the rules. We tell them they have to pay for their news links, they decide not to host news links. And as far as the laws are concerned, they did nothing wrong. Public opinion is another story, but that's irrelevant in this context.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pablo Rodriguez mentioned that during talks with then they said they could relay selected urgent news though (which they had done in Australia when they had banned their news), they're just acting in bad faith to prove a point.

[–] moody@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago

Agreed, they definitely could relay urgent messages, or even put it up as their own news without falling afoul of the new law.

I did mention in my first post that it would be an easy gesture of good faith, but I think there's some spite there. They made their threats, the government acted anyway, and now they're sticking to their guns.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So they shouldn't compensate the people whose work brings them profit? Know what we call that in the physical world?

Stealing.

If the government is willing to make an exception for emergency news, that Meta proved they're able to do it in Australia and even told the Canadian government it's something they could do, then who's in the wrong here?

[–] el56@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@Kecessa @cheery_coffee

Whose work is bringing who profit?

The cruel reality is that the Canadian media need Facebook more than Facebook needs Canadian media.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Journalists and media company produce content, journalists are paid by media company that profit from their work and pay taxes on that profit.

Facebook is used to share content from media companies and make profit from it, they don't compensate media companies or pay taxes in Canada.

Media companies receive a small bump in traffic compared to the total number of views, they get a small bump in profit from ads revenues on their website and they pay taxes on it.

In the end the majority of revenues generated from views on Facebook doesn't profit the content creators/owners in any way nor does it profit the country in which the owners are established.

So you need me to make it even simpler than that? You're arguing that medias should settle for the scraps when Facebook is feasting by exploiting their work.

[–] el56@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@Kecessa

The reality is that the Canadian media need Facebook more than Facebook needs the Canadian media.

If the "bump" is so small, why is everyone complaining when this "exploitation" is removed? They should be cheering!

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Reaction from Radio-Canada and La Presse has been negative only in the sense that they think it sucks that because some people only take their needs from Facebook they'll now lose access to reliable information if they don't bother going directly to the source. There's also the obvious criticism that comes with Meta saying "We can still do it in case of emergency like we did in Australia" and then turning around and not sharing critical info when the situation presents itself.

I honestly believe they should simply be banned from Canadian internet at this point unless they start paying taxes on all profits made from Canadians and their content, but I don't make the rules.