this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
61 points (91.8% liked)

Canada

7203 readers
262 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think the headline mischaracterizes the intent of the ban. It didn't fail to dent Facebook usage. The ban succeeded, showing no reduction in Facebook traffic despite reducing access to content.

[–] nathris@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It wasn't a ban. It was a tax designed to funnel money into the media companies that own our politicians.

It failed spectacularly because it shows that Canadians don't visit Facebook for news coverage, and that Meta was 100% correct to not pay for access to content that its users don't care about.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree that the tax was designed to funnel money into the media oligopoly to which our politicians are beholden.

But like the headline, you are conflating the tax with the ban. They aren't two sides of the same coin, the ban (or maybe more accurately boycott) is a reaction to the tax.

[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Was it a tax? I thought the law simply required third parties to actually pay for reproducing the work of news outlets? Basically paying for paid work, rather than just stealing it?

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

You're right I was duped by Google.

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It was a ban on Meta's side. Of course, not with an intent to dent their own user's usage. That part does not logically follow.

The headline (and probably the article) was written by machine, is all. That has been standard practice in the news business for many years now. Just another machine-generated hallucination that we have come to know and love.