What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Regions
🏒 Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL)
unknownFootball (CFL)
unknownBaseball
unknownBasketball
unknownSoccer
unknown💻 Universities
💵 Finance / Shopping
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social & Culture
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
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.
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.
Yeah I’m in agreement. Plus if you’re going to force one , how do you decide who else? Should Etsy need energy alerts?
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.
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.
"More than ever, this kind of dangerous situation shows how having more access to trustworthy and reliable information and news is vital for so many of our communities to be informed about the current emergency."
Facebook isn't trustworthy. Tech bros can't be trusted.
It's not like the internet has been removed. Social media isn't the internet. News sites are still accessible. As is the whole internet. People need to get their head out of their asses already. This problem is farcical. Life threatening situation, 'oh no my facebook is broken what will I do?!?11'. How did we even get to this point. The internet circa 90s and early 2000s is laughing their asses off at all this. PEBKAC.
A fundamental question of the 21st century is, as internet media company replace legacy media companies, do they have the same responsibilities? Legacy media companies have the advantage they get to use a very limited piece of Canadian real-estate, that is the airwaves, and so the Government is in a good position to say "well if we're letting you use our airwaves, we need you to do something for us" and this includes CanCon, emergency broadcast, etc.
But now those "airwaves" are becoming increasingly abandoned and everything is digital and going over wires, wifi, and cellular to the international internet. But the above thing about "broadcast" was always a hack. It was a workaround for the fact that basically we need the loudest voices in Canada to also help Canada out.
And now we've lost that justification, but we still have the need.
Imho, the justification was always BS. If you have a massive media-org with a giant-ass megaphone in Canada, you've got responsibilities. I don't care if you're a website or a news channel or a dead tree paper.
CBC is grasping at straws trying to put the blame on Facebook for the very bill they pushed through, that had very predictable consequences. Canadians news publishers have no one to blame for this but themselves.
The article basically reads as though they're upset for not being paid by Meta during emergencies and sad they can't profit as much off people glued to watching emergencies (it's absolutely not because they're truly concerned for the actual ppl facing the emergency). It's quite tasteless for them to pull the misinformation card when news publishers aren't always known to spread accurate or helpful information -- they're mostly there for the fear mongering. And Meta's response on that front is the correct one: they're not blocking government sites and government sites should be considered the sources of truth and information during emergencies.
That said, unrelated to news link sharing, there's a larger discussion to be had around emergency broadcasts over the internet: should the government create legislation to have an emergency notification tool in place that can be triggered on Canadian websites and websites catering to Canadians (social media included)? Many institutions, including universities, have their own systems for doing exactly this so why can't the government?
Facebook's response was petulant and childish. This is not Canada's fault any more than it was the fault of other countries who enacted the same regs.
Oh. You didn't know there were others?
There's only one country with even a remotely similar legislation, that being Australia. Facebook got the amendments it wanted before the Australian Code received royal assent.
If you're going to cry foul about how Facebook is following the legislation Canada is putting in place, you'll need to try harder than that.
The legislation isn't even in place yet, and FB are acting like Trudeau just nut punched Zuckerburg.
FB didn't want to talk. If they did, they would say they are in talks.
What FB wanted, was to be a bully and have the law repealed. Not have it adjusted.
Should they? Not if we punish them with fees for linking. I mean, imagine you're trying to warn your neighbours about an approaching fire and a police officer pulls up to tell you that you'll have to pay $50 for each neighbour you warn. I wouldn't blame you if you stopped, I'd blame whatever law stopped you. Similarly here, I don't blame Meta for not linking but I blame the government that will penalize Meta the moment any link points to a news outlet, emergency or not.
This is a bad take. I'm blaming Facebook for deciding they'd rather not have news than share the money they make off it with the people who need to be paid to make it.
While paying 0$ in taxes on the profit they make off of Canadians, don't forget to add that part!
The tax and the legislation is at least a half a year from coming into force, the regulatory framework to operationalize it hasn’t even been published for public consultation.
Meta has started blocking preemptively. This is a power play protest about avoiding being subject to other countries’ law. That’s it.
While I'm sure there are some messaging aspects to doing it early, it's worth pointing out that by January, unless the government repeals the law, Meta will be penalized for allowing links during emergencies. This specific law comes into operation regardless of whether the government has published any framework or not.
This is a power play protest about avoiding being subject to other countries’ law.
Meta is complying with this law. The idea behind the law was that Meta was stealing ad revenue from news organizations by linking to them, and that if they wanted to continue linking to them they needed to compensate news organizations. Meta has thus stopped 'stealing' the ad revenue. That's complying with the law. It did exactly what it was expected to do, in the same way that when you tax cigarettes you expect some people to cut back on smoking. Even better, Meta stopped 'stealing' before the law even came into force!
Seriously it's like there's nothing they can do to satisfy their critics - they get accused of stealing news so they stop it, and then they get accused of harming news sites by not stealing.
Which is it? Is Meta beneficial to news organizations or harmful to them? If harmful then there's no problem with Meta blocking news links. If beneficial, then maybe this is a dumb law that's akin to the government putting a tax on exercising.
Perhaps we’d do better to look at the text of Bill C-18.
You seem to be saying that the law itself has already laid out that Meta is who it applies to.
Instead, it says that a list needs to be established.
List of digital news intermediaries 8 (1) The Commission must maintain a list of digital news intermediaries in respect of which this Act applies. The list must set out each intermediary’s operator and contact information for that operator and specify whether an order made under subsection 11(1) or 12(1) applies in relation to the intermediary.
Meta clearly sees that the law is intended to apply to digital platforms with significant market power such as it has. But it has not yet been designated.
Timing - coming into force - you are correct that there is a hard deadline at end of year.
180 days after royal assent (6) Despite subsections (1) to (5), any provision of this Act that does not come into force by order before the 180th day following the day on which this Act receives royal assent comes into force 180 days after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.
Basically, you are justifying Meta’s actions on the basis that it recognizes that a law it doesn’t like will apply to it in future.
From the text (very end of the bill):
180 days after royal assent
(6) Despite subsections (1) to (5), any provision of this Act that does not come into force by order before the 180th day following the day on which this Act receives royal assent comes into force 180 days after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.
The bill received royal assent on June 22nd, 2023, which actually means this law takes effect in December at the latest.
EDIT - I think we were updating our messages at the same time as I added the above before yours was finished.
I think it's clear that Meta would be covered if it links to news given this section:
This Act applies in respect of a digital news intermediary if, having regard to the following factors, there is a significant bargaining power imbalance between its operator and news businesses:
(a) the size of the intermediary or the operator;
(b) whether the market for the intermediary gives the operator a strategic advantage over news businesses; and
(c ) whether the intermediary occupies a prominent market position.
7 (1) If this Act applies in respect of a digital news intermediary, its operator must so notify the Commission.
There's doesn't seem much room for Meta here - if they link to news they'll be covered by this law. The only possible escape might be in Section 11 where it allow the Governor in Council to write regulations that exempt organizations, and if the government is going to exempt Meta they might as well just repeal the law.
Or Parliament may pass further legislation on accelerated calendar that will require Meta to carry links in declared emergencies much as cable companies and private broadcasters are now.
Did they offer to let them carry the links for free? Or are they using an emergency to demand a payday?
Love how FB gets to charge for bots to scrape their content, while they scrape everyone elses content for free.
Once again, THE LEGISLATION HAS NOT YET COME INTO FORCE.
Yelling is rude, but the repeated questions that seem to ignore that Meta’s blocking of links is preemptive is beginning to have the feel of sealioning.
Meta is not at risk of any tax if they unblock links during this emergency.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Evacuees from the devastating blazes threatening Yellowknife say the ongoing fight between Meta, the owner of Facebook, and Canada's federal government over who should pay for news has made it harder to spread life-saving information about the wildfires in the Northwest Territories.
Poitras says it's bad enough having to handle the logistics of getting out in a hurry and worrying about what might happen to her home town while she's gone, but the situation has been made worse by the ongoing fight between Big Tech and the Canadian government over who should pay for news.
The debate over Bill C-18, known as the Online News Act, may be an academic one in many parts of Canada, but not in the North, where people are dealing with an unfolding natural disaster while suddenly being unable to use one of the most popular communication platforms to share information about wildfire locations and evacuation plans.
A live news conference covered by Cabin Radio and CBC on Wednesday evening announced the evacuation of Yellowknife, but it wasn't shareable on Facebook, prompting users like Poitras and others to try to get around the block by posting screengrabs of information instead of direct links.
"People in Canada are able to use Facebook and Instagram to connect to their communities and access reputable information, including content from official government agencies, emergency services and non-governmental organisations," said Meta spokesperson David Troya-Alvarez.
She says the world is watching the Canadian dispute closely, as numerous other jurisdictions have similar laws planned, and Meta has clearly "decided to use Canada as a bit of a test population to try this out and see how far they can force the government to go before perhaps keeping or coming to the bargaining table.
The original article contains 1,512 words, the summary contains 275 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Good bot
So what's the situation on Lemmy? Who will pay for this article's link to CBC?
Lemmy is neither large enough nor monetizing our views so it’s outside the scope of the legislation and the new regulations that will need to be written, formally consulted through the Canada Gazette process and then approved by Cabinet. Basically, what Lemmy’s doing is still fair use by a carrier.
As I understand it, the Canadian legislation is different than the Australian one in that the Australian version would just have had a minister name which companies would be subject to the tax.
Canada, having been in trade disputes with the US over ministerial designation processes that can be argued to lack transparency, went a different route that would make the tax come into effect for large platforms, monetizing content without paying the sources/creators.
Is monetization required for a site to qualify as a digital news intermediary though? It seems like there just needs to be an imbalance:
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-18/royal-assent
Application 6 This Act applies in respect of a digital news intermediary if, having regard to the following factors, there is a significant bargaining power imbalance between its operator and news businesses:
(a) the size of the intermediary or the operator;
(b) whether the market for the intermediary gives the operator a strategic advantage over news businesses; and
(c) whether the intermediary occupies a prominent market position.
What happens when a Lemmy instance gets too big?
The legislation talks in effect about market power and the benefit to the carrier itself. Without monetization, there wouldn’t be an issue.
If an instance is running ads on article summaries then it would be the owner of that instance