•  festus   ( @festus@lemmy.ca ) OP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2010 months ago

    Seeing how the Liberals have behaved during this whole process makes me feel like they’ve traded the classic middle-of-the-road pragmatism they were known for for blind ideology. Which as a voter sucks, because I can’t think of a single party right now that would actually make evidence-based, expert-informed decisions for our country.

      • The whole idea the internet is interlinked sites. Then again the whole idea if the internet was also a robust, reliable, multi-nodal, non-corporate architecture for redundant transmission of data, so we’re headed into the shitter already.

        But, more to the point, if you start charging people for links you break the purpose of being able to link things. It will kill Canadian journalism first, but it will wound a portion of the internet in the process. And if it spreads it will do net harm to both sides, everywhere.

          1. You already are charged by Google the price is your data and ads
          2. The target is 1 billion dollar + entities (based on my skim)

          Just like the original comment this seems like wild overstatement.

    • If these websites were someone’s blog linking to a news article, I’d agree. They’re not and they’re not merely linking content. This isn’t the open web, it’s not the internet. These are platforms with captive audiences. Once you put that in the thought process, it flips the argument on its head.

  • This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The federal government has put a price tag on what it would like to see Google and Facebook spend under an act requiring the tech giants to compensate media for news articles.

    Draft regulations released by the government Friday outlined for the first time how it proposes to level the playing field between Big Tech and Canada’s journalism sector.

    Facebook and Instagram parent company Meta, which blocked news on its platforms in anticipation of the act coming into effect at the end of the year, immediately expressed its disappointment with the proposal.

    “We’re carefully reviewing the proposed regulations to assess whether they resolve the serious structural issues with C-18 that regrettably were not dealt with during the legislative process,” Google spokesperson Shay Purdy said in response to the draft.

    The two companies have long lobbied against the legislation, with Meta claiming news is a tiny fraction of its business and removing it would result in little revenue loss for the social networking giant.

    Google’s president of global affairs Kent Walker, meanwhile, has said the legislation “exposes us to uncapped financial liability” and claimed it’s being targeted just because it shows links to news, “something that everyone else does for free.”


    The original article contains 751 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!