Because there are technical nuances in what they're actually reproducing, where it came from and how it was shared with you. Are they actually reproducing cont

Because there are technical nuances in what they're actually reproducing, where it came from and how it was shared with you. Are they actually reproducing content wholesale? If so, I would think copyright law would allow content producers to stop that unless it's properly licensed anyway. Are they posting content from meta tags that use Facebook's OpenGraph standard for specifying how content should be previewed when linked? Then how is that not intended for this exact use case in the first place? Are they scraping content, and using heuristics / ML to generate an appropriate subset of the content for a preview and choose an appropriate picture, that they then reproduce? Okay - that's more of a grey area. But do the people debating this even understand the difference between what would actually be happening for these different use cases? Do they know enough to clearly write a law that allows one but not the other? I hardly think so. I just had a meeting with some lawyers at a massive tech company, whose job it is to approve the use of open-source licenses, who couldn't grasp the concept that viewing a web page results in code being downloaded and executed by the browser. Because somebody assigned that job to corporate lawyers who don't understand technology, thinking it wasn't a technical issue and didn't require any technical education, experience, or understanding.