5 ms·

I really wish Canada would grow a pair, and stand up to the big social media platforms -- especially in the light of the latest shenanigans with the availabilit

I really wish Canada would grow a pair, and stand up to the big social media platforms -- especially in the light of the latest shenanigans with the availability of / paying for news. Whichever side of that debate you fall on, you have to admit that meta et al are in a position to strong-arm a country and have an impact on its laws. That's a terrible precedent, already having played out in Australia. Anything that chokes off the flow of money via advertising to these companies is a two-tier win in my book.

tomComb 3y ago
I’m no fan of the power of big tech, well, except when it involves standing fast against the blatant political corruption of a government devising a bizarre and nonsensical law to funnel money to their corporate buddies (according to PBO analysis the most money goes to bell, rogers and Shaw). Yes, Canada should develop strong privacy and competition laws, but I’ve lost hope that they wouldn’t just be whatever serves the interests of our local oligopolies.
- goodpoint 3y ago
  Big companies are not standing against corruption. They are the ones pushing the biggest envelopes.
  - tomComb 3y ago
    Their influence (and the size of their envelopes) is puny here compared to our telecoms.
    - goodpoint 3y ago
      No: GAFAMs are massively wealthy and powerful, also telecoms are big companies as well.
nceqs3 3y ago
>Anything that chokes off the flow of money via advertising to these companies is a two-tier win in my book. So you want paywalls for every service?
- celnardur 3y ago
  You don’t need to track people to pay for things with ads. You can advertise based on the surrounding content pretty effectively. It’s what TV channels have done for years. Behavior ads or paywall is a false dichotomy.
  - bostik 3y ago
    And news papers. And a long time ago, that's how Google ads worked too. Contextually relevant, non-intrusive, respectfully done untargeted advertising is acceptable. Quoting myself from earlier times: https://bostik.iki.fi/aivoituksia/random/no-stalking.html https://bostik.iki.fi/aivoituksia/random/no-stalking.html
- hightrix 3y ago
  I want to consume content that was made by people who simply want to make that content for the sake of sharing information. I don’t care if content that is made by people that only make content to make money is pay walled. They can have their 10:01 long YouTube videos and recipes with a preamble of their life story behind a paywall. Sounds good to me.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  I want to see what business models people come up with without ads sucking up all the oxygen in the room. We tried ad supported content, it was bad, let’s roll the dice again and see what we get.
legitster 3y ago
Canada is saying FB has to pay if they want news on their platform. FB doesn't make any money off of promoting news articles for free, so they take news off their platform. What's the controversy? Was FB just supposed to pay for news out of their own goodwill? I'm no Meta defender but I'm also very confused about what the legislators thought the law was supposed to do.
- M95D 3y ago
  > what the legislators thought the law was supposed to do. I suppose it was to protect the (online) newspapers? In a more general way, not let the internet become facebooknet?
  - memefrog 3y ago
    How does it protect online news websites to prevent people from sharing links to their articles on social media? That's a major discovery mechanism for their content.
- troad 3y ago
  > I'm no Meta defender but I'm also very confused about what the legislators thought the law was supposed to do. Cui bono? The law was supposed to siphon funding from foreign companies to Canadian media, who the Canadian government are in bed with. That's why it doesn't appear to make sense: it's not public-benefit lawmaking, it's plain ol' corruption. Same as the earlier Australian law (there, it was Rupert Murdoch leaning on the Coalition government which he largely kept in power with his local media empire). It's why the Canadian government is so apoplectic about it; Meta's unexpected pushback exposes the law to scrutiny it simply cannot withstand, and highlights a rather unsavoury side of the government in having ever passed it.
  - btbuildem 3y ago
    Yeah, that law and the govt's response seems so absurd until you line up their incentives with the incentives of the Canadian communications oligopoly and suddenly things make sense.

tomComb 3y ago

I’m no fan of the power of big tech, well, except when it involves standing fast against the blatant political corruption of a government devising a bizarre and nonsensical law to funnel money to their corporate buddies (according to PBO analysis the most money goes to bell, rogers and Shaw). Yes, Canada should develop strong privacy and competition laws, but I’ve lost hope that they wouldn’t just be whatever serves the interests of our local oligopolies.

goodpoint 3y ago
Big companies are not standing against corruption. They are the ones pushing the biggest envelopes.
- tomComb 3y ago
  Their influence (and the size of their envelopes) is puny here compared to our telecoms.
  - goodpoint 3y ago
    No: GAFAMs are massively wealthy and powerful, also telecoms are big companies as well.

nceqs3 3y ago

>Anything that chokes off the flow of money via advertising to these companies is a two-tier win in my book. So you want paywalls for every service?

celnardur 3y ago
You don’t need to track people to pay for things with ads. You can advertise based on the surrounding content pretty effectively. It’s what TV channels have done for years. Behavior ads or paywall is a false dichotomy.
- bostik 3y ago
  And news papers. And a long time ago, that's how Google ads worked too. Contextually relevant, non-intrusive, respectfully done untargeted advertising is acceptable. Quoting myself from earlier times: https://bostik.iki.fi/aivoituksia/random/no-stalking.html https://bostik.iki.fi/aivoituksia/random/no-stalking.html
hightrix 3y ago
I want to consume content that was made by people who simply want to make that content for the sake of sharing information. I don’t care if content that is made by people that only make content to make money is pay walled. They can have their 10:01 long YouTube videos and recipes with a preamble of their life story behind a paywall. Sounds good to me.
bee_rider 3y ago
I want to see what business models people come up with without ads sucking up all the oxygen in the room. We tried ad supported content, it was bad, let’s roll the dice again and see what we get.

legitster 3y ago

Canada is saying FB has to pay if they want news on their platform. FB doesn't make any money off of promoting news articles for free, so they take news off their platform. What's the controversy? Was FB just supposed to pay for news out of their own goodwill? I'm no Meta defender but I'm also very confused about what the legislators thought the law was supposed to do.

M95D 3y ago
> what the legislators thought the law was supposed to do. I suppose it was to protect the (online) newspapers? In a more general way, not let the internet become facebooknet?
- memefrog 3y ago
  How does it protect online news websites to prevent people from sharing links to their articles on social media? That's a major discovery mechanism for their content.
troad 3y ago
> I'm no Meta defender but I'm also very confused about what the legislators thought the law was supposed to do. Cui bono? The law was supposed to siphon funding from foreign companies to Canadian media, who the Canadian government are in bed with. That's why it doesn't appear to make sense: it's not public-benefit lawmaking, it's plain ol' corruption. Same as the earlier Australian law (there, it was Rupert Murdoch leaning on the Coalition government which he largely kept in power with his local media empire). It's why the Canadian government is so apoplectic about it; Meta's unexpected pushback exposes the law to scrutiny it simply cannot withstand, and highlights a rather unsavoury side of the government in having ever passed it.
- btbuildem 3y ago
  Yeah, that law and the govt's response seems so absurd until you line up their incentives with the incentives of the Canadian communications oligopoly and suddenly things make sense.