50 ms·

> 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 optio

by 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

by jsnell 3y ago

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