this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
48 points (94.4% liked)

CanadaPolitics

1971 readers
16 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
all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TemporaryBoyfriend 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fuck Meta. Just tell people to go to TRUSTED news sites. Either their local radio or television stations, or the CBC.

[–] mintiefresh 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Just host their own Mastodon instance.

[–] Pyr_Pressure 8 points 1 year ago

It's not that they don't have services available to notify people, it's just that people don't use those services. Even if they do use those services, they don't check them hourly like some may check Facebook.

Even if they hosted a mastodon instance, less people would probably see that than the services they already maintain. It's just not mainstream enough yet.

[–] mp3 6 points 1 year ago

Honestly I would be happy if most of their comms where available under several Mastodon accounts I could subscribe to. No account needed even!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'd really like to understand this in a different light than I currently see it in..

  1. People post stuff made by other sites on facebook, sometimes even the creators of the stuff. Facebook never posts these things on their own. Facebook makes money on ads on it's site, this covers hosting, employees, coding...

  2. People read stuff on Facebook, instead of creator's site, and don't view creator's ads.

  3. Creators want compensation, legislation forces it from Facebook.

  4. Facebook disallows OTHERS from posting the stuff, so that they aren't liable to creators for what those people (who are sometimes the same creators complaining) are doing. (Duh?)

  5. The creators, now unpaid and standing to earn, posts this negatively everywhere and amplifies it on their platforms.

  6. Canada is pissed?

Obviously if clicking through is desired, legislate that they can only show the link and title. Forcing companies to pay for what users post... Very obviously would end up with disallowed posting.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pretty much spot on, just missing one thing. The way the law is written is that it also disallows direct links (these would forward individuals to news sites and generate add revenue).

Whomever came up with this law just does not understand the internet is built on links.

Media companies were complaining about social sites summarizing news content, therefore users would not have to go directly to a news site (lost revenue for media companies). Instead social sites were generating ad revenue themselves with more "active" users.

[–] EhForumUser 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Media companies were complaining about social sites summarizing news content

Which is funny as Facebook gave editorial control over what is shown on Facebook to publishers many years ago using what they call the Open Graph protocol. All of the major news sites in Canada appear to be already using Open Graph – literally telling Facebook exactly what they want shown when someone links to their content, including the summary of their choosing.

It seems media company spokespeople need to spend more time talking to their fellow employees and less time talking to politicians. But, I know, it's a better story to tell your friends that you got to have dinner with Justin Trudeau. Sharing that you stopped by Bob Smith's desk in the software department doesn't have quite the same ring.

[–] festus 3 points 1 year ago

That's kind of right although I somewhat disagree with #2. It's not so much that Facebook is causing people to not visit news organizations websites that's hurting news organizations, but more so that there are so many ways to advertise to consumers now (largely through Facebook & Google) that the news organizations are struggling to get advertisers to pay them top $ to advertise with them like they used to. Basically, even if Facebook had banned news from day 1 of its existence and consumers had never expected to find it on Facebook, the fact that advertising has become cheaper would itself hurt news organizations that relied on advertising revenue.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Is there not a proper emergency broadcast system over there?

I get them in Ontario. Every radio, television, smart phone, etc is supposed to go off when an emergency alert is broadcast. I could have sworn it was supposed be be for way more places in Canada than just Ontario.

I've had it go off for a tornado warning, an amber alert (missing child), an alert for an armed and dangerous suspect (guy killed a cop and ran), and we've even had a fun nuclear one that pretty much said "There is not an emergency happening at the nuclear plant. Everything is fine". (That was a neat way to wake up)

If they don't have things in place for an alert service to work properly there, they should really change that. Facebook would mean diddly squat if the internet somehow went out or became inaccessible. Minutes can count.

[–] BCsven 5 points 1 year ago

yeah we have that, I think je was referring to people's general search on social media for recent news updates rather than actual government alerts

[–] nul42 3 points 1 year ago

Lawmakers who scold for profit corps for focusing on making profits without breaking any law should instead propose a new law or legal framework so we can evaluate weather it would achieve a desirable outcome in changing the behaviour of these entities.

[–] baggins 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Jeez I'm not one to bash Trudeau but if he really thinks this outcome was inconceivable maybe the guy isn't so bright after all.

[–] villasv 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] baggins -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Politicians passing shitty laws ate my face!

-Trudeau probably

[–] villasv 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m not one to bash Trudeau

So that was a lie, or I'm just very lucky to see it twice in an hour

[–] baggins -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Damn well go buy a lottery ticket then

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's how you respond after getting called out for lying?

[–] baggins -2 points 1 year ago

I'm lying because some guy on the internet says so? Get fucked loser, lmao.

[–] nik282000 1 points 1 year ago

I hate the flags, the lifted pickups, the freedom stickers and anti-vax bullshit, but I finally have to agree, fuck Trudeau. Depending on Facebook to SAVE THE LIVES OF YOUR CITIZENS is absolutely ignorant.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

My dream is a follow up article titles “Trudeau denounces his own stupid policy.”

[–] susquatch 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Can somebody please tell me if I understand this correctly? So the liberal government had a bill passed that disallows social media companies from sharing news articles, then Trudeau blasts the social media company for not sharing news articles.

[–] reanmachine 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They passed a law that said big companies have to PAY to post links to articles.

On the surface it was to go after places like Google News that would summarize an article, link to it for attribution, but people would rarely visit the original article fueling the advertisements that funded the media.

However to nobody's surprise, the government cocked up the legislation for the problem. They made a law that required the to pay for links, so the big companies just went... Ok, no links, no bill.

Obviously they didn't think this through, they wanted money to flow from Google/FB to Canadian media for a real problem, but in the effort to seek a way to tap the money for taxes, over legislated without understanding the problem and ended up with no links, no taxes.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is pretty much what went wrong. It's a legit problem when google presents a search result by parsing through an article, providing their own summary, and prevents a click. You can even see this on non news searches. You might search for something like what's the largest river in eastern Europe, and it'll return a result from a webpage half way down the webpage and show it as an excerpt (totally made up example). Now I don't need to visit the website, preventing ad revenue.

When you simply post a link on something like Meta, the news organizations themselves are providing the summary you see when you post it. If they're so damned worried about people not clicking links because their provided summary prevents you from reading the article, that isn't Google or Meta's fault. Change the snippet, or don't provide one.

It's insane that the media groups are now trying to say it's anti competitive for meta to not allow people to post news articles now and are trying to force them to allow it. You must allow people to post links, and you must pay us if they do. It's crazy talk.

I'm big on the hate Meta bandwagon and I despise using their service and rarely touch it, but this is all our governments fault. This didn't have to turn out like this.

[–] corsicanguppy 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So the liberal government

Which other government would it be? It's okay to just say The Government when they're the elected ones ... unless this is less a question and more Question Period?

[–] Stalinwolf 4 points 1 year ago

"The librul gubment"

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

Apparently Meta would have to pay for any news shared. If it’s so important to the government I’m not sure why they don’t just foot the bill or make an exception. Why can’t they offer the wildfire news and tell Meta ok no need to pay for news from our government website?

Edit: never mind I see in the article that users can already access info from a gov site.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Fuck off. You literally have a national broadcaster and our tax money at your disposal. Not defending Facebook but this is pure misdirection and blame shifting by a government that doesn't give a shit but gets their feelings hurt when its citizens call them out for it. You're the one who fucked us over and the fact that so many Canadians relied on Facebook of all places to learn whether they might burn to death tomorrow is a total disgrace on your part.

[–] mp3 6 points 1 year ago

Honestly, fuck both the government for being complacent for too long and letting Facebook get into this position at the expense of the media, and Facebook for being a privacy hellhole siphoning everything it can.

[–] phx 5 points 1 year ago

And double fuck the gaslighting bullshit when the REASON Facebook and others dropped actual news is because the government told them they'd have to pay for linking news articles.

[–] GrindingGears 2 points 1 year ago

It 100% reeks of politics.