5 ms·

Where is Google News on this? Searching for "fire yellowknife" I see for example links to articles from the Toronto Star, CBC and Calgary Herald. Is Google payi

Where is Google News on this? Searching for "fire yellowknife" I see for example links to articles from the Toronto Star, CBC and Calgary Herald. Is Google paying for the privilege of displaying those links?

prepend 3y ago
That’s just as stupid as Canada trying to force Facebook to pay news companies because users were sharing articles with each other. We’re in a “stupid, arbitrary rule” situation and users are finding workarounds. Canada’s law seems dumb to me. Yes, news companies make less money because of Facebook, but it’s users communicating. Should the postal service pay the newspapers if people start mailing people letters with newspaper clippings?
- kennywinker 3y ago
  Newspaper clippings via mail? That’s screenshots. You can take a screenshot and post it no problem. > Yes, news companies make less money because of Facebook Seems to me they don’t just “make less money”, it’s more like they “stop existing”.
  - prepend 3y ago
    When they stop existing, that’s less money. What I mean is that the postal service provides a server, people mailing letters. Facebook’s service is people messaging each other. If people started sending links to each other in the mail and it kills newspapers, should the postal service pay? People message all sorts of stuff on Facebook. And it frequently causes companies to make less money and/or stop existing. That doesn’t mean Facebook should pay those companies to keep existing.
    - kennywinker 3y ago
      Ok so to make your postal service analogy accurate let’s add a detail: whenever you send a newspaper clipping the postal service opens the letter and inserts a piece of junkmail. Ok now imagine the gov passes a law saying “if you insert junkmail into a letter containing a newspaper clipping, you have to pay a fee to the newspaper”. Where’s the problem? Either they stop inserting ads, or they pay. As for “make less money” vs “stop existing” - having journalism exist is in the publics interest. If one business threatens to cause another to go out of business we might not care, but in this case the business is theoretically socially important.
      - jsnell 3y ago
        > Where’s the problem? Either they stop inserting ads, or they pay. Well, one pretty big problem is that nothing analogous to "stop inserting" ads is an option provided by the law as passed in reality. You've made it up to make the law sound better than it is. That you had to resort to such fibbing seems like a pretty good indicator on how flawed the bill is.
        kennywinker 3y ago
        I’m not fibbing to make a point. > The goal is to support news businesses to negotiate and receive fair compensation when third parties with a dominant market position monetize their news content https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c18_1.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c18_... It’s possible there isn’t a loophole where they can just demonetize news, I haven't read the law back to front, but the law only exists because of their monetization of news. To be clear the law, as understand it, doesn’t set out a schedule of fees or anything like that - it merely sets up an enforced bargaining between companies like fb and news producers. So even if there’s no demonetization loophole, an agreement like “no monetizing shared news” is very much a possible arrangement under the law. They’d have to come to the bargaining table first tho
        jsnell 3y ago
        Evaluating a law based on some non-normative fluff text is like judging a book by the marketing blurbs. The law does not mention monetization of the news content as a requirement. It does in fact not mention monetization at all. It is true that the law sets up enforced bargaining, but in a way that effectively precludes any outcome where Meta does not pay money. If Meta links to any news content from any eligible news company, they must negotiate with everyone. If anyone they are negotiating with is unhappy with the result, they can take it to binding arbitration, and the law forces the arbitration committee to reject any offer that does not "contribute to the sustainability" of Canadian media. Any final offer from Meta that does not involve then paying a sum that is obviously enough would be rejected and automatically cause the opposite final offer to be accepted, no matter how unreasonable. (This is not symmetrical; the news company does not need to suggest a deal that's obviously not too bad). The arbitration panel would incidentally also be forced to reject any offer that is based on a revenue share of ads shown for news content. (Since that would allow Meta to control the amount paid.) Given this, why would any Canadian news company agree to a deal that allows non-monetized linking for free? As long as Meta plays the game with even one company, any of them can force Meta to both share their content and also be paid for it, whether Meta profits from it or not
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  What I don't get is why they caved and agreed to it in Australia but are standing up against Canada.
smitop 3y ago
The (relevant parts of the) legislation haven't come into force yet - most of the sections of the Online News Act don't come into force until the "a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council". Facebook is preemptively complying with the law before it's brought into force, but Google is waiting until it actually comes into effect (https://blog.google/intl/en-ca/company-news/outreach-initiatives/an-update-on-canadas-bill-c-18-and-our-search-and-news-products/ https://blog.google/intl/en-ca/company-news/outreach-initiat...).
phyrex 3y ago
The law hasn’t come into effect yet, meta was early with its implementation. Google said they would do the same thing once the law applies.

prepend 3y ago

That’s just as stupid as Canada trying to force Facebook to pay news companies because users were sharing articles with each other. We’re in a “stupid, arbitrary rule” situation and users are finding workarounds. Canada’s law seems dumb to me. Yes, news companies make less money because of Facebook, but it’s users communicating. Should the postal service pay the newspapers if people start mailing people letters with newspaper clippings?

kennywinker 3y ago
Newspaper clippings via mail? That’s screenshots. You can take a screenshot and post it no problem. > Yes, news companies make less money because of Facebook Seems to me they don’t just “make less money”, it’s more like they “stop existing”.
- prepend 3y ago
  When they stop existing, that’s less money. What I mean is that the postal service provides a server, people mailing letters. Facebook’s service is people messaging each other. If people started sending links to each other in the mail and it kills newspapers, should the postal service pay? People message all sorts of stuff on Facebook. And it frequently causes companies to make less money and/or stop existing. That doesn’t mean Facebook should pay those companies to keep existing.
  - kennywinker 3y ago
    Ok so to make your postal service analogy accurate let’s add a detail: whenever you send a newspaper clipping the postal service opens the letter and inserts a piece of junkmail. Ok now imagine the gov passes a law saying “if you insert junkmail into a letter containing a newspaper clipping, you have to pay a fee to the newspaper”. Where’s the problem? Either they stop inserting ads, or they pay. As for “make less money” vs “stop existing” - having journalism exist is in the publics interest. If one business threatens to cause another to go out of business we might not care, but in this case the business is theoretically socially important.
    - jsnell 3y ago
      > Where’s the problem? Either they stop inserting ads, or they pay. Well, one pretty big problem is that nothing analogous to "stop inserting" ads is an option provided by the law as passed in reality. You've made it up to make the law sound better than it is. That you had to resort to such fibbing seems like a pretty good indicator on how flawed the bill is.
      - kennywinker 3y ago
        I’m not fibbing to make a point. > The goal is to support news businesses to negotiate and receive fair compensation when third parties with a dominant market position monetize their news content https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c18_1.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c18_... It’s possible there isn’t a loophole where they can just demonetize news, I haven't read the law back to front, but the law only exists because of their monetization of news. To be clear the law, as understand it, doesn’t set out a schedule of fees or anything like that - it merely sets up an enforced bargaining between companies like fb and news producers. So even if there’s no demonetization loophole, an agreement like “no monetizing shared news” is very much a possible arrangement under the law. They’d have to come to the bargaining table first tho
        jsnell 3y ago
        Evaluating a law based on some non-normative fluff text is like judging a book by the marketing blurbs. The law does not mention monetization of the news content as a requirement. It does in fact not mention monetization at all. It is true that the law sets up enforced bargaining, but in a way that effectively precludes any outcome where Meta does not pay money. If Meta links to any news content from any eligible news company, they must negotiate with everyone. If anyone they are negotiating with is unhappy with the result, they can take it to binding arbitration, and the law forces the arbitration committee to reject any offer that does not "contribute to the sustainability" of Canadian media. Any final offer from Meta that does not involve then paying a sum that is obviously enough would be rejected and automatically cause the opposite final offer to be accepted, no matter how unreasonable. (This is not symmetrical; the news company does not need to suggest a deal that's obviously not too bad). The arbitration panel would incidentally also be forced to reject any offer that is based on a revenue share of ads shown for news content. (Since that would allow Meta to control the amount paid.) Given this, why would any Canadian news company agree to a deal that allows non-monetized linking for free? As long as Meta plays the game with even one company, any of them can force Meta to both share their content and also be paid for it, whether Meta profits from it or not
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
What I don't get is why they caved and agreed to it in Australia but are standing up against Canada.

smitop 3y ago

The (relevant parts of the) legislation haven't come into force yet - most of the sections of the Online News Act don't come into force until the "a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council". Facebook is preemptively complying with the law before it's brought into force, but Google is waiting until it actually comes into effect (https://blog.google/intl/en-ca/company-news/outreach-initiatives/an-update-on-canadas-bill-c-18-and-our-search-and-news-products/ https://blog.google/intl/en-ca/company-news/outreach-initiat...).

phyrex 3y ago

The law hasn’t come into effect yet, meta was early with its implementation. Google said they would do the same thing once the law applies.