I can verify I don't look to Facebook for news whatsoever so Zuckerberg can preform self fellation for all I care. 

 Same, Facebook or Instagram is about the last place I would look to for news. They will figure it out, this is just posturing. If they can't get to an agreement it is possible that it could do damage to both Google and Facebook, only because other countries would likely do something similar eventually.  But I am confident some agreement will be made, even if they limit or pull the service for a while.  

RadioActive wrote:

"We have repeatedly shared that in order to comply with Bill C-18 … content from news outlets, including news publishers and broadcasters, will no longer be available to people accessing our platforms in Canada, said Meta in a media statement."=12px  

Good. Free-linking is the very foundation of the web.

This isn't the same as the situation in Australia, where the block was initiated right at the start of COVID, several government health sites got swept up with it, and there was massive public outcry. Additionally, the Australian law gave some wiggle-room for negotiation, but correct me if I'm wrong, the Canadian law determines the funding formula.

One thing Facebook doesn't lack is data. 

They've done the math.

They know what percentage of their engagement comes from news stories posted by the orgs, exactly how much that contributes to revenue, and that the payment for links aren't worth it. Simple as that. 

Last edited by RadioAaron (June 22, 2023 7:22 pm)

This story is driving me crazy but not because I depend on Facebook for any kind of news. (If anything, it's a prime source of disinformation.) So. like many here, this disruption won't affect me in any way. 

No, the reason it's making me nuts is because, while I understand the troubles newspapers are in and they shouldn't have their material taken while someone else gets ad revenue, the concept of paying for links makes no sense to me. 

If I reproduce a story from a newspaper, then, yes, the source should be paid for that. But if I link to a story on a news site, doesn't the originating site get the ad impressions when I go there? Yes, Google gets some revenue from pointing you in that direction, but as long as a viewer ends up at the site, isn't that the point? And without the search engine to let you know a story on a subject you're interested in exists, with millions of pages online, how are you supposed to find it?

Back in the days of the Yellow Pages, Bell didn't have to pay Henry's Hat Shop to publish his number in their directory. Henry actually benefited from having his name there, because people looking for hats might dial his number and he might get more sales. Imagine if it had worked the other way and Henry had to pay to get his name in there. (They did have ads in the phone books, but you didn't have to pay for one to get listed.)

Maybe someone here can explain the logic behind this. Of course, the newspapers are in favour of the law - they're desperate for cash. And I'm no fan of either Meta or Google. But how does paying for a link make any sense? I doesn't tell you anything but a headline and you still have to go to an ad-laden site to read the actual story. Can someone explain the logic behind this? What am I missing?

paterson1 wrote:

Wouldn't newspapers know anyway how many linked in from the search engine?  Maybe the numbers aren't as great as people thought. Could be that most of the traffic for newspapers is coming directly to them.  I know for myself, I always go directly to the news sites that I look at.    

Well, if that's the case, what's the big deal about links and why go to all this trouble that could disrupt millions? This whole thing doesn't seem well thought out to me. 
 

Professor Michael Geist, considered an expert pundit on communication issues in Canada, also has questions about this. While I simply don't get what they're trying to achieve, he warns the entire law is entirely misguided.

"In less than two months, the government has reshaped the Internet in Canada with Bills C-11 and C-18 leading to streaming services that may block Canadian users and platforms that may block news sharing. The result is a cautionary tale for Internet regulation initiatives with Canada emerging as a model for how things can go badly wrong.

"The initial Bill C-11 consultations at the CRTC have resulted in some streaming services unsurprisingly responding to legislation that applies Canadian law to every service anywhere in the world by raising the prospect of exiting the Canadian market if not granted exemptions. Bill C-18 threatens to create a Canadian news void on Facebook and Instagram, a result that will increase the visibility of low quality sources and lead to millions in lost traffic and revenues for the supposed beneficiaries of the bill."

His thoughts are worth a read. More here. 

How is a simple link "using" anything? Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Meta and Google. In fact, I think they're way too powerful. I just don't get how charging them to put up a link is justified. If they take an article and repost it in its entirety, which can happen on Facebook, that's one thing. But linking to something is simply making use of their search engine.

It's the same to me as if you were posting to a recipe someone put up. You can't see the content unless you know it's there and you can't know it's there unless someone tells you where to find it. Google serves that function. How is that stealing anything? 

Let me put it another way. If I finish my basement using a company and you come over and love what they did, you might ask me who did the work, so you can hire them, too. If I give you their number or website, are you supposed to pay me for that information? I get nothing out of it, but the renovator does. Why should you have to remunerate me for, in essence, "linking" you to them?

I want newspapers and journalists to survive. I'm not arguing they need help. I just don't get the way they're going about it. 

RadioActive wrote:

How is a simple link "using" anything? Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Meta and Google. In fact, I think they're way too powerful. I just don't get how charging them to put up a link is justified. If they take an article and repost it in its entirety, which can happen on Facebook, that's one thing. But linking to something is simply making use of their search engine.
 

And the whole internet makes money from linking, including the host of this site! Facebook and Meta just happen to be two of the biggest.