5 ms·

Good, this is a consequence of pure rent-seeking lobbying from big newspapers. > There have been 52 registered meetings with Ministers, MPs, and senior officia

by davikr 3y ago

Good, this is a consequence of pure rent-seeking lobbying from big newspapers. > There have been 52 registered meetings with Ministers, MPs, and senior officials or roughly one meeting every four days since election day nearly 8 months ago. This represents an astonishing level of access and may help explain why the concerns of independent media and the broader public are missing from the bill. [1] [1]: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/04/how-did-news-media-canada/ https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/04/how-did-news-media-canad...

kennywinker 3y ago
Facebook wants to make money off selling ads next to other people’s content. News media wants to get paid for the content they pay to create. Who’s rent seeking again?
- catchnear4321 3y ago
  if information about disasters is “content,” then the correct answer is “everyone.”
  - kennywinker 3y ago
    It costs money to gather information, send reporters + photographers places, etc. rent seeking is wanting to be paid for no new work, not wanting to be paid for work that is in the public interest.
    - three3 3y ago
      Well, Facebook already blocked sharing news, so... Where's the rent seeking?
      - kennywinker 3y ago
        Fb killed most of the previous forms of media that people would have turned to for this news. But now facebook will sell us the solution, but only if we don’t regulate them in any way. Sounds fair?
        three3 3y ago
        [dead]
    - catchnear4321 3y ago
      the content was already created. posting it to facebook is an optional means of distribution. no, i wont consider posting the article to be work. > rent seeking is wanting to be paid for no new work which if it weren’t information about disasters, most people wouldn’t care about too much. posting or hosting, once the article is written, it’s all rent seeking.
      - kennywinker 3y ago
        > posting or hosting, once the article is written, it’s all rent seeking. That almost makes sense in a non-digitized world. I.e. It’s not rent seeking to sell newspapers, because each newspaper costs money and takes work to make - but in a digitized world, you’re essentially saying any profiting off content is “rent seeking”. Like if I make a video course teaching a skill and I try to sell it, that’s rent seeking? Seems like that waters the concept of rent seeking down to the point of uselessness.
        catchnear4321 3y ago
        it’s not rent seeking for the original creator to sell content direct to a consumer. if you wish to carry this further from the initial point, you do so without me.
        kennywinker 3y ago
        > it’s not rent seeking for the original creator to sell content direct to a consumer. So it’s rent seeking for the original creator to post it for free and sell ads against it? And what’s with this “original creator” language? Does that only apply to the author, or can the company that paid the author to create it sell it without being rent-seekers? My point is: you called fb and news producers both rent seekers, and i don’t believe they both are unless you use a overly broad to the point of useless definition of rent-seeking.
        paulmd 3y ago
        Profiting from content production is obviously not rent seeking, but this is currently coupled to content distribution which is absolutely rent-seeking. You’re charging money for something that costs nothing to distribute, what else would it be? That’s a rent absolutely. It is a rent that secures the production aspect, but we could also have patronage models that fund the creation separately. If your game is kickstarted or you get a monthly donation to produce a video there is no need to profit from creating artificial scarcity in the distribution.
- victorbjorklund 3y ago
  So you should be happy now that they are no longer making money off wild fire articles in canada?
  - kennywinker 3y ago
    Nothing facebook does makes me happy.
  - JKCalhoun 3y ago
    At the end of the day we're watching the fabric of society disintegrate (maybe I'm going a bit hyperbolic?) but we're cheering for the corporations.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- Mystery-Machine 3y ago
  Disclaimer: I hate Facebook. I despise them. In this instance, if I understand correctly, Facebook is supposed to pay news companies whenever someone posts a link to their news site. That's ridiculous. Hacker News also falls under this law, so does X, Reddit, Mastodon,... Since when it became ok to charge for your users sharing links on your "link sharing" website?
  - kennywinker 3y ago
    As I understand it the law: 1. Defines a negotiation framework between news creators and online sharing sites. So not a specific fee, just forcing sites to come the table. Which means flat rates (not per share) or percentage based arrangements (like spotify does with artists) are totally possible. 2. only applies when there is a significant power imbalance between the news creator and sharing site. This bit i think means it wouldn’t apply to hn or a mastodon instance. Twitter i’d guess it would apply to. reddit idk, they’re smaller than you’d think.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by davikr 3y ago

kennywinker 3y ago

Facebook wants to make money off selling ads next to other people’s content. News media wants to get paid for the content they pay to create. Who’s rent seeking again?

catchnear4321 3y ago
if information about disasters is “content,” then the correct answer is “everyone.”
- kennywinker 3y ago
  It costs money to gather information, send reporters + photographers places, etc. rent seeking is wanting to be paid for no new work, not wanting to be paid for work that is in the public interest.
  - three3 3y ago
    Well, Facebook already blocked sharing news, so... Where's the rent seeking?
    - kennywinker 3y ago
      Fb killed most of the previous forms of media that people would have turned to for this news. But now facebook will sell us the solution, but only if we don’t regulate them in any way. Sounds fair?
      - three3 3y ago
        [dead]
  - catchnear4321 3y ago
    the content was already created. posting it to facebook is an optional means of distribution. no, i wont consider posting the article to be work. > rent seeking is wanting to be paid for no new work which if it weren’t information about disasters, most people wouldn’t care about too much. posting or hosting, once the article is written, it’s all rent seeking.
    - kennywinker 3y ago
      > posting or hosting, once the article is written, it’s all rent seeking. That almost makes sense in a non-digitized world. I.e. It’s not rent seeking to sell newspapers, because each newspaper costs money and takes work to make - but in a digitized world, you’re essentially saying any profiting off content is “rent seeking”. Like if I make a video course teaching a skill and I try to sell it, that’s rent seeking? Seems like that waters the concept of rent seeking down to the point of uselessness.
      - catchnear4321 3y ago
        it’s not rent seeking for the original creator to sell content direct to a consumer. if you wish to carry this further from the initial point, you do so without me.
        kennywinker 3y ago
        > it’s not rent seeking for the original creator to sell content direct to a consumer. So it’s rent seeking for the original creator to post it for free and sell ads against it? And what’s with this “original creator” language? Does that only apply to the author, or can the company that paid the author to create it sell it without being rent-seekers? My point is: you called fb and news producers both rent seekers, and i don’t believe they both are unless you use a overly broad to the point of useless definition of rent-seeking.
        paulmd 3y ago
        Profiting from content production is obviously not rent seeking, but this is currently coupled to content distribution which is absolutely rent-seeking. You’re charging money for something that costs nothing to distribute, what else would it be? That’s a rent absolutely. It is a rent that secures the production aspect, but we could also have patronage models that fund the creation separately. If your game is kickstarted or you get a monthly donation to produce a video there is no need to profit from creating artificial scarcity in the distribution.
victorbjorklund 3y ago
So you should be happy now that they are no longer making money off wild fire articles in canada?
- kennywinker 3y ago
  Nothing facebook does makes me happy.
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  At the end of the day we're watching the fabric of society disintegrate (maybe I'm going a bit hyperbolic?) but we're cheering for the corporations.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
Mystery-Machine 3y ago
Disclaimer: I hate Facebook. I despise them. In this instance, if I understand correctly, Facebook is supposed to pay news companies whenever someone posts a link to their news site. That's ridiculous. Hacker News also falls under this law, so does X, Reddit, Mastodon,... Since when it became ok to charge for your users sharing links on your "link sharing" website?
- kennywinker 3y ago
  As I understand it the law: 1. Defines a negotiation framework between news creators and online sharing sites. So not a specific fee, just forcing sites to come the table. Which means flat rates (not per share) or percentage based arrangements (like spotify does with artists) are totally possible. 2. only applies when there is a significant power imbalance between the news creator and sharing site. This bit i think means it wouldn’t apply to hn or a mastodon instance. Twitter i’d guess it would apply to. reddit idk, they’re smaller than you’d think.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]