3 ms·
I don't use either service, but I find this insane. If a third world country controlled what media it's citizens could see, people would be up in arms (figurati
by version_five 3y ago
I don't use either service, but I find this insane. If a third world country controlled what media it's citizens could see, people would be up in arms (figuratively, sadly).
Somehow commonwealth countries trample rights all over the place, and we all just pretend it isn't happening.
Btw this is because Canada's government is in the pocket of it's media oligopoly. The crtc exists to prevent competition for incumbents. Canada's basically a banana republic, I guess it always was.
Edit: there are lots of examples of people criticizing twitter for caving to Turkey's request to block them. Somehow people ignore it when it happens in countries that pretend to be "free".
- activiation 3y agoIf they remove all news, it might not be such a bad thing... Not sure how they will do that though.
- adhvaryu 3y ago> The act, which was known as Bill C-18, is designed to force Google and Facebook to share revenues with publishers for news stories that appear on their platforms. By removing news altogether, companies would be exempt from the legislation. The bill is to make these websites share revenues with the source of the information. Not to stop people from getting news. It's Facebook who has a problem here.
- version_five 3y agoThat's a very simplistic take. I'd encourage people to read the article and decide themselves.
- austinshea 3y agoOkay, I hope so too. The article reads: Rodriguez said: “Facebook knows very well that they have no obligations under the act right now.” Your original post is full of your ideas, that do not relate to this article.
- cscurmudgeon 3y agoAgreed on that. Contrast Western response to Farmers protest in India (violent with multiple deaths) vs Trucker convoy protests (zero deaths).