5 ms·

I live in Canada and I'm 100% on meta / Google's side. If you mandate that to link to you I must pay you. Then you get to deal with people not linking to you.

I live in Canada and I'm 100% on meta / Google's side. If you mandate that to link to you I must pay you. Then you get to deal with people not linking to you. It's a bad law, and it's basically mugging tech companies to prop up big news orgs.

andy-j 3y ago
[flagged]
- xvector 3y ago
  Extortion isn't okay, even if you're extorting people you don't like.
  - p4thogenesis 3y ago
    And extortion codified into law is doubly not okay. Anyone with common sense should understand this.
- throwitaway156 3y ago
  What? Just because they are a megacorp, it is okay to breach their rights?
  - Pet_Ant 3y ago
    Yes? Because corporations shouldn’t have rights, should only exist to benefit citizens, and should have legislation applied when they are being harmful. I can’t tell if you were being sarcastic.
    - parineum 3y ago
      Corporations don't have rights. The people running them, however, do. I don't know about Canada but here in the States we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to equal protection under the law. That includes the people that own and work for corporations.
      - Pet_Ant 3y ago
        Even in the US it is considered bad idea by many.
    - throwitaway156 3y ago
      and who will incorporate these 'non-profit' 'companies' that will get bankrupt in a single lawsuit? Monks? i also would love a system like this, but 'should's never truly apply in the real world.
Obscurity4340 3y ago
How does Reddit and Twitter (maybe even Hackernews) and basically everyone else get around this besides Facebook? Is Reddit paying for every link now? I don't understand why I'm only hearing about Facebook with regard to issue
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- xvector 3y ago
  The Canadian law names Meta and Google specifically. Others are not affected. It's targeted extortion.
  - notjulianjaynes 3y ago
    I am not aware of Meta or Google being specifically named in the law, could you please provide a source for this? This page does not make that reference at least: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-news.html https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-n...
    - elrnv 3y ago
      The bill text is here: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-18/royal-assent https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-18/royal-a... The relevant piece from the summary is: > (d) requires the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) to maintain a list of digital news intermediaries in respect of which the enactment applies; CRTC is a government entity so the government reserves the power to decide who is on the list. I couldn't find the list online though.
- TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
  No presence in Canada?
HWR_14 3y ago
It's not about linking to them, it's about supplying a comprehensive summary so that people read that and don't follow a link to them.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  This is factually incorrect. “The act says digital companies must pay news organizations when someone gets to a web story through a link on one of their products.” - https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/c-18-your-questions-answered-1.6925260 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/c-18-your-questions-answered-1...
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    It's about compensating the news agencies for the lack of ad income they get from people following links because of the summaries. If every summary has a similar click through rate then using the clicks through to distribute the news dollars makes sense. It's just assuming that 1 in 10[0] people who see the summary click through, so they use that to compensate for the other 9. [0] or whatever the ratio is.
    - belval 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - Auracle 3y ago
      That’s, of course, assuming that those 10 people would have gone to that specific news site and read that specific story if it wasn’t linked. Which is, of course, ridiculous. Those news sites are almost certainly gaining visitors from those links, not losing them.
      - HWR_14 3y ago
        It assumes that had FB not summarized the article, people would have followed the link in the same location in their feed. Seems fair to me. You can claim that news sites gain more than they lose. That's a different argument.

andy-j 3y ago

[flagged]

xvector 3y ago
Extortion isn't okay, even if you're extorting people you don't like.
- p4thogenesis 3y ago
  And extortion codified into law is doubly not okay. Anyone with common sense should understand this.
throwitaway156 3y ago
What? Just because they are a megacorp, it is okay to breach their rights?
- Pet_Ant 3y ago
  Yes? Because corporations shouldn’t have rights, should only exist to benefit citizens, and should have legislation applied when they are being harmful. I can’t tell if you were being sarcastic.
  - parineum 3y ago
    Corporations don't have rights. The people running them, however, do. I don't know about Canada but here in the States we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to equal protection under the law. That includes the people that own and work for corporations.
    - Pet_Ant 3y ago
      Even in the US it is considered bad idea by many.
  - throwitaway156 3y ago
    and who will incorporate these 'non-profit' 'companies' that will get bankrupt in a single lawsuit? Monks? i also would love a system like this, but 'should's never truly apply in the real world.

Obscurity4340 3y ago

How does Reddit and Twitter (maybe even Hackernews) and basically everyone else get around this besides Facebook? Is Reddit paying for every link now? I don't understand why I'm only hearing about Facebook with regard to issue

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
xvector 3y ago
The Canadian law names Meta and Google specifically. Others are not affected. It's targeted extortion.
- notjulianjaynes 3y ago
  I am not aware of Meta or Google being specifically named in the law, could you please provide a source for this? This page does not make that reference at least: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-news.html https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-n...
  - elrnv 3y ago
    The bill text is here: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-18/royal-assent https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-18/royal-a... The relevant piece from the summary is: > (d) requires the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) to maintain a list of digital news intermediaries in respect of which the enactment applies; CRTC is a government entity so the government reserves the power to decide who is on the list. I couldn't find the list online though.
TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
No presence in Canada?

HWR_14 3y ago

It's not about linking to them, it's about supplying a comprehensive summary so that people read that and don't follow a link to them.

_aavaa_ 3y ago
This is factually incorrect. “The act says digital companies must pay news organizations when someone gets to a web story through a link on one of their products.” - https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/c-18-your-questions-answered-1.6925260 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/c-18-your-questions-answered-1...
- HWR_14 3y ago
  It's about compensating the news agencies for the lack of ad income they get from people following links because of the summaries. If every summary has a similar click through rate then using the clicks through to distribute the news dollars makes sense. It's just assuming that 1 in 10[0] people who see the summary click through, so they use that to compensate for the other 9. [0] or whatever the ratio is.
  - belval 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - Auracle 3y ago
    That’s, of course, assuming that those 10 people would have gone to that specific news site and read that specific story if it wasn’t linked. Which is, of course, ridiculous. Those news sites are almost certainly gaining visitors from those links, not losing them.
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      It assumes that had FB not summarized the article, people would have followed the link in the same location in their feed. Seems fair to me. You can claim that news sites gain more than they lose. That's a different argument.