3 ms·

Amazing what greed can do. They want to make money from the news, yet they don't want to pay the news sources for letting them feed off of it. If a Canadian ou

by ksaj 3y ago

Amazing what greed can do. They want to make money from the news, yet they don't want to pay the news sources for letting them feed off of it. If a Canadian outfit wanted to host news and other media from the US, you know it wouldn't happen without payments in kind to the American news or media outlet.

andsoitis 3y ago
I'll assume you're writing in good faith, so I will try to explain why I think some are disagreeing with you. > Amazing what greed can do. They want to make money from the news, yet they don't want to pay the news sources for letting them feed off of it. The Canadian government has said that a law is going to come into effect that will ban a company like Facebook from allowing news links unless the news provider is compensated. Meta has started to put changes into effect to comply with the rules of the land. The Canadian government is now demanding that an arbitrary exemption is being made. How is a company meant to build systems with such whiplash reactionary legal framework? > If a Canadian outfit wanted to host news and other media from the US, you know it wouldn't happen without payments in kind to the American news or media outlet. > (Downvoting doesn't make it untrue. Same for the other posts this user is downvoting.) You are postulating.
- ksaj 3y ago
  I suppose the sites (except for CBC) could paywall. That would be the only recourse. And would actually solve the issue at hand in a lot cleaner and familiar way. The law change has both its support and detractors here, so wholesale downvoting without even commenting is counter to any real discussion. So I do appreciate your input for sure. I agree with your statement on Meta complying with what they were told to do, and not wanting to entertain an about-face when shortcomings in the law (before it is even passed!) show up. We also have Canadian Content Laws here that have an impact on how Canadian media is handled within our own borders. I would expect people who don't like that law to also not like this one - they both complicate things more than they were presumably meant to.
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  > arbitrary exemption Public safety? As soon as you codify it into the law it is no longer arbitrary. Maybe arbitrarily enforced (down the road) but that is a different battle.
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    What makes it arbitrary is that "a public safety exemption" isn't specified or codified in the language of the anticipated regulation. Even it if were, there's also another practical wrinkle with using the concept of "public safety" when it comes to "news". Would the definition, for example, include "fake news"? A company can also decide that it is too risky to automatically detect whether a news article complies with the law (e.g. IF public_safety THEN allow_share) and so it is more practical to just have a simple exclusion for sharing news.
    - JKCalhoun 3y ago
      I acknowledged that "public safety" would be a sticking point. But I think it's not naive to believe that new laws might have unintended consequences that need to be addressed in amendments or follow-up laws. A generous view of what is happening now is exactly that: a wild fire revealed an unintended consequence. Why though is the only alternative to let the corporations Do As Thou Wilt?
      - andsoitis 3y ago
        I think all that matters is that Canadians are informed about the fires. If the Canadian government is acting in good faith by "demanding" then they should reflect on whether there's a problem with public safety information flow. > Why though is the only alternative to let the corporations Do As Thou Wilt? Is that what is happening here? That's not my read.

by ksaj 3y ago

andsoitis 3y ago

I'll assume you're writing in good faith, so I will try to explain why I think some are disagreeing with you. > Amazing what greed can do. They want to make money from the news, yet they don't want to pay the news sources for letting them feed off of it. The Canadian government has said that a law is going to come into effect that will ban a company like Facebook from allowing news links unless the news provider is compensated. Meta has started to put changes into effect to comply with the rules of the land. The Canadian government is now demanding that an arbitrary exemption is being made. How is a company meant to build systems with such whiplash reactionary legal framework? > If a Canadian outfit wanted to host news and other media from the US, you know it wouldn't happen without payments in kind to the American news or media outlet. > (Downvoting doesn't make it untrue. Same for the other posts this user is downvoting.) You are postulating.

ksaj 3y ago
I suppose the sites (except for CBC) could paywall. That would be the only recourse. And would actually solve the issue at hand in a lot cleaner and familiar way. The law change has both its support and detractors here, so wholesale downvoting without even commenting is counter to any real discussion. So I do appreciate your input for sure. I agree with your statement on Meta complying with what they were told to do, and not wanting to entertain an about-face when shortcomings in the law (before it is even passed!) show up. We also have Canadian Content Laws here that have an impact on how Canadian media is handled within our own borders. I would expect people who don't like that law to also not like this one - they both complicate things more than they were presumably meant to.
JKCalhoun 3y ago
> arbitrary exemption Public safety? As soon as you codify it into the law it is no longer arbitrary. Maybe arbitrarily enforced (down the road) but that is a different battle.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  What makes it arbitrary is that "a public safety exemption" isn't specified or codified in the language of the anticipated regulation. Even it if were, there's also another practical wrinkle with using the concept of "public safety" when it comes to "news". Would the definition, for example, include "fake news"? A company can also decide that it is too risky to automatically detect whether a news article complies with the law (e.g. IF public_safety THEN allow_share) and so it is more practical to just have a simple exclusion for sharing news.
  - JKCalhoun 3y ago
    I acknowledged that "public safety" would be a sticking point. But I think it's not naive to believe that new laws might have unintended consequences that need to be addressed in amendments or follow-up laws. A generous view of what is happening now is exactly that: a wild fire revealed an unintended consequence. Why though is the only alternative to let the corporations Do As Thou Wilt?
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      I think all that matters is that Canadians are informed about the fires. If the Canadian government is acting in good faith by "demanding" then they should reflect on whether there's a problem with public safety information flow. > Why though is the only alternative to let the corporations Do As Thou Wilt? Is that what is happening here? That's not my read.