15 ms·
Yeah, it doesn't look like they asked every single individual Canadian what they wanted. But here are the details for what was driving this. https://www.canada
by palijer 3y ago
Yeah, it doesn't look like they asked every single individual Canadian what they wanted. But here are the details for what was driving this.
https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/fair-revenue-sharing/stakeholder-engagement.html https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/fair-re...
- LegitShady 3y agoYou have it backwards. Thats the way they justify what they already had planned. That didn’t drive this, that’s the post-decision excuse. “We consulted with stakeholders and press decided they really wanted that money”
- ix-ix 3y agoMeh, as a Canadian, this might not be perfect, but I am happy whenever the government attempts to revitalize Canadian heritage and remove American influences.
- LegitShady 3y agoAs a canadian, this is a disaster of legislation, and I don't celebrate attempts at anything that are so bad for the internet. The precedent this sort of legislation sets will break the internet and also make companies leave canada in fear of having legislation targeted at them. And for no gain at all. No Canadian heritage will be saved, and this doesn't remove american influences because google and meta were going to be charged for linking to canadian news, not american news. Still 100% ok to link to american news. This legislation does the opposite of what you're claiming.
- pcthrowaway 3y agoAlso Canadian, and I agree. But I also think their recently passed legislation concerning online streaming services was a bad move.
- ix-ix 3y agoI am super happy with that law.
- LegitShady 3y agoEveryone is allowed to have bad opinions, but if you can't even provide logical reasoning for them, then they don't matter at all because its not persuasive. Your support for this link tax law was poor reasoning and its likely your support canadian content laws are similarly flawed.