The Online News Act passed last Thursday and would force platforms like Google and Meta, Facebook and Instagram’s parent company, to strike deals with Canadian media publishers for sharing, previewing and directing users to online Canadian news content.

  • Fosheze@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    In what world does that make sense? Did the author of that bill and everyone who voted on it never use the internet? How is that enforcable in any way?

    • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, you won’t see me shedding any tears for the multinational hundred billion dollar internet based corporations lol

      • CoderKat@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        What about the Canadian news companies that now won’t get nearly as many visitors because many people see news through sites like google?

        Or what about the Canadians who won’t see as much local news? Even if they go look for it specifically themselves, they can expect to see less of it on social media because other people won’t see as much (and thus won’t share as much).

        • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m Canadian, so no need for hypotheticals. I can browse my news sites directly. No trouble for me.

          Also, and this is a novel idea, maybe Google et al. should abide by the rules of the states in which it operates without forms of petty protest. This is a battle between a capitalist conglomerate and the Canadian state. I’m virulently anti-capitalist, so I don’t particularly care about the profit incentives of any of these corporations or even of the private for profit news sites. The bill to be clear would ensure the news sites get paid, and that Google and Facebook do not profit off of the content their editors are writing. But Google and Facebook don’t like that, because they’re fucking capitalists who control enough GDP to fucking buy Canada. So they can fuck off then, that’s fine. Like I said before, you won’t see my crying for them.

          • ritswd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t disagree with anything you just said, I also couldn’t care less about the business loss it would be for Google/Meta. But I think people’s surprise is not about that, it’s about how this business relationship was potentially actually beneficial for the Canadian news outlets who pushed for this, since a lot of their actual traffic was coming from what Google and Meta had built, whether those Canadian editors like it or not. If that’s the case, then they’re basically shutting down an effort that was providing them free advertising, potentially shooting themselves in the foot.

            They also can’t claim that they wouldn’t know it would happen, since that’s what Spain did a while ago, and that’s exactly what happened. If the issue is about reusing copy, some other countries passed laws allowing Google to provide the free advertising by showing users links and titles, but without providing any summary, and Google abided. But the Canadian law here was written to ban even the parts that may be beneficial.

            If you personally go straight to news websites, then yeah, there’s no loss for editors from your usage. But the thought here is that a ton of users don’t do it like you do, and the Canadian news outlets that made this law happen are about to suddenly lose all traffic from those users.

          • styx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            For news aggregation and summary, I totally agree with you. For just search indexing and referring, though, I think paying just for a link that is no more than 10 words is not justified. If I post a link in this comment from a Canadian news site, should I pay a fee, too? Because section 2 part b states that access to the news content, or any portion of it, is facilitated by any means, including an index, aggregation or ranking of news content.

          • eee@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m late to the discussion, i’m no fan of giant companies and the billionaires that run them but this isn’t the place to fight them. If you’re summarising the article and depriving the website of clicks and ad revenue then you should definitely pay the news sites, but if you’re linking to them then you’re basically helping direct traffic there. Just like what happened in Spain Google is going to pull out of Canada, the news publishers are going to realise they’re seeing a huge drop in traffic, and a year or two later they’ll be asking Google to come back.

            • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe. Its a nonsense song and dance while Canadians are facing the worst cost of living and housing crisis in our nation’s history. We had the government outright prove that the nation’s largest grocery chains are fixing prices under the guide of inflation and literally nothing happened. Two weeks of groceries for me and my family cost us nearly 350$ when I was there yesterday. The same amount was around 150$ 2 years ago. Wages haven’t increased anywhere near that much. But you get used to liberal democracy doing whatever it can to distract from the crimes of capitalists. So they’re “taking a stand” against news aggregators. It doesn’t matter either way. The working class is one bad day away from homelessness. A dispute between local media capitalists and foreign mega corporations has no impact on anything whatsoever.

    • May@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Afaik - feel free to correct me - this is charging companies for when they show ppl the news content on their platforms bc when that happens theres no reason for people to go on the news site, so they dont, and those companies just profitted (or at least prevented the news sites from profitting) off info that someone else wrote. Is like if u look up “lemon nutrition facts” and then all the info is just right there, sometimes you can see in the corner or bottom a link to the website that info came from but a lot of people wouldnt even go onto the site because Google already showed them the info. So thats why this was done i think ?? I think something like this was tried in Australia too and Google didnt like it then either. But idk if it went through.

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        As I’ve read, Google would also have to pay them for the privilege of linking to their articles. You’re not allowed to drive traffic and ad money to news sites without also paying them.

        If it’s anything like the dumb law the EU tried to pass (it did get passed, but with exemptions in the end luckily, for hyperlinking in particular), you can’t even post a link to a news article on Facebook or Reddit because said companies would get in trouble for it.