Meta is so unwilling to pay for news under a new Canadian law that it’s starting to block it on Facebook and Instagram in that country::The rollout of the news ban on Facebook and Instagram for users in Canada will take place over the next few weeks.
Meta is unwilling to pay for anything. They don’t pay taxes on their benefits in Canada either, after having swallowed almost 100% of the online ads business. But they’ll keep talking about how good for Canada and Canadians they are.
“They trust me. Dumb fucks!” – Mark Zuckerberg
Facebook tried this in Australia, but backed down after a week, and now pay a significant amount to news organisations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Media_Bargaining_Code
Google and Facebook aren’t going to cut themselves out of such a big slice of interaction, they’re just throwing a tantrum and hoping the government caves.
The two laws really aren’t the same. With the Australian law, a last minute amendment allowed digital platforms and news publishers to directly negotiate deals, which is when Facebook “backed down.” The Canadian law imposes a specific link tax
Oh it’s worse. They paid Rupert Murdoch who was the one who forced the government to do the law. He owns all their balls down under. So the bad guys won however you look at it.
deleted by creator
Canadian residents can access news online by going directly to news websites, using mobile news applications, and subscribing to preferred publishers.
Lol. Or you know. Lemmy!!
Or you know. Lemmy!!
Until Canada tries to enforce this law against Lemmy instances.
You mean like asking a fair share of Lemmy’s instances ads revenues to be given to media companies?
Lemmy? Ad revenue?
thatsthejoke.jpg
Sure, and non-profit digital radio stations will never need to pay for music streams.
No, we’ve been watching how this sort of nonsense plays out for decades. If what you want to do is not contemplated by the regulatory deal, then it’ll end up illegal.
I wish them luck with that!
That’s not how the law works.
What exempts small sites?
Why do you think that loophole won’t be closed in the future?
The literal language of the law exempts small sites.
but, but, then who will filter the news they’re fed with, so that they only get exposed to opinions they “like”, thus reinforcing whatever polarized view they have? Why would they want to access ANY news??
From what I’ve noticed, Facebook has been doing exactly the opposite for me. It shows me only the articles that will make my blood boil. And then it’ll also preview only the comment that will make me rage the hardest, whether it’s the most reacted to or not. It’s a fucking rage generator.
Google has been fear-mongering hard about this law, which is why I’ll have to assume it’s actually a good thing. I think some enforcement of balance between journalists and the monolithic platform squeezing them is a step in the right direction, although there are some legitimate concerns about unintended consequences.
Imagine being forced to make a better product.
That said, after the Threads position the actual story here is that Meta no longer thinks that the benefit of news outweighs the hassle. If it didn’t, they’d pay.
And they are likely right - AI + US election cycle news isn’t gonna be a net positive for them
No one here is realizing the ridiculousness of telling an internet company that DRIVES TRAFFIC to journalism they must pay for the privilege of sending them the traffic. I’m not a fan of FB, but extorting a company for sending you business is like a reverse protection racket. Whether it’s FB or Google, or Duck Duck Go, it’s asinine.
As I understood it from a previous incarnation of this topic where it involved Google it’s less nonsensical than it sounds (at least it was in that specific case, this one may be different, so take this post with a grain of salt).
The thing these media companies have issue with is that their content is displayed on the social media website’s feed, usually in the form of a headline and a short summary. Many people will only read the headline and this summary and will never actually visit the website of the media company, so they can’t monetize these users through the ads on their website or through subscription services. Meanwhile Google/Facebook get to extract value from their content for free.
Of course by that logic you could maybe also say that users should get paid for posting links as they have added their own value by curating the content displayed on the social media site, but they don’t have a team of lobbyists. :)
I’m with the Zucc on this one. Facebook is a platform, they are not in charge of the content that gets published on there. Anybody can post anything at anytime. If people want to share news articles on there, they do so on their own. Why would Facebook pay media companies money for the actions of their users? It hurts their business? Fuck them and their business, it’s a new economy. You either adapt or die. If these multibillion dollar corporations haven’t been able to milk social media then that’s their problem. They’re not entitled to Facebook’s revenue regardless of how much you or I hate it.
This just sounds like the dying traditional media industry is trying to leech off of the success of others in order to cling on to dear life. Fuck em.
Wait, this article makes it sound like Meta would have to pay for other people posting links on Facebook to news websites. If that’s the case, that’s nuts. Are they gonna try doing this with Reddit and Lemmy too, or does it just apply to Facebook? Cause that’s a great way to get Canadian news sites banned from everything on the entire net.
Such good news :) Trash took itself out .
I would check Facebook more often than now (never) if it was just updates and pics from my friends and family. Right now Facebook is just shitty Reddit. Ban news for everyone Zuck!
This will probably have no affect on Facebook’s profits but will definitely result in a big drop in traffic to the news sites, ultimately costing them money.
Same thing happened in Spain. Not sure why Canada thought it’d go differently for them.
Same happened in Australia but Facebook backed down
Not exactly…
Australia agreed to amend the law to make it much more favorable to Facebook. In essence, Facebook and Australia compromise.
deleted by creator
Because the law was changed: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/facebook-ban-australia-1.5924076
deleted by creator
Where are the downsides
Individuals who only get news from social media may find less “respectable” news coverage and an increase in “news” from sources who rely on unsavory backers.
Which is to say: if Facebook won’t pay for legitimate news coverage, misinformation will drown everything else out.
I disagree. Those people were already being massively misinformed, and didn’t click articles in the first place. All this means is next time a dipshit at work wants to argue with me I get to say “if it’s on facebook it’s entertainment not news”.
Good for Canada. Being more aktiv and critical in reading and searching for news is good and way better than getting “presented” with the news Meta selectively wants you to see.
Less click bait range exposure? That’s be actually good for people.
I mean thats probably a good thing anyway
