this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
4 points (66.7% liked)

CanadaPolitics

2700 readers
169 users here now

Placeholder for any r/CanadaPolitics refugees

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
lightrush
grte
4
Salvaging Bill C-18: Government Upends Legislation To Bring Google Onside the Online News Act (www.michaelgeist.ca)
submitted 1 year ago by mrbn to c/canadapolitics
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The government has announced that it has reached agreement with Google on deal that will ensure that news links are not blocked on the search engine and that the company pays $100 million to support the news sector in Canada.

top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] grte 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This comes across as sour grapes from the guy who wrote this. The compromise came Michael, and you were fear mongering this whole time.

[–] avidamoeba 3 points 1 year ago

He doesn't sound too happy to concede being on the wrong side of this. I bought the absolutists libertarian approach towards net neutrality and the web 15 years ago. We've learned a few things since then.

[–] undercrust 7 points 1 year ago

That's funny, this appears to be legislation working, not being "salvaged".

[–] avidamoeba 6 points 1 year ago

"Salvaging" 🤔

[–] villasv 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

According to the author, the policy was bad because...

  1. He estimates the benefits of Bill C-18 as "only" $50 million
  2. It was unnerving because "months of uncertainty [...] could have been avoided" (guess who benefits from all the drama?)
  3. It's barely at break-even (point number 1 again) because Google will supposedly cancel $100 MM from the Showcase program, which is unrelated?
  4. "The government was ultimately able to strike deal largely by changing the law [...] After claiming for months that it would not get involved in negotiations" lmao okay this is the worst one because it's a plain lie

‎

So the bill is bad because the government was able to strike a deal, which is what the author is saying it should have done anyway, and the problem is that the government said "it would not negotiate" - it never said that, it has been in negotiations since always. What is this garbage level of journalism? Geez, it's only outdone by the braindead comments.