Counterpoint: it helps keep the vulnerable-minded away from Postmedia temptations.

This follow-up to the previous story reiterates some of what you have already read. 

Ottawa says Meta may still see Online News Act regulation — but CRTC wants more proof

But there's one sentence at the end about Meta blocking Canadian news that has me, frankly, stunned. 

"A year into the ban, a new study shows local news outlets have seen a significant drop in their audience, while Meta itself has seemingly been unaffected.

The CRTC says it’s the company’s responsibility to inform the regulator if it falls under the law, and Meta hasn’t done so."

I can't be reading that right, can I? It's Facebook's parent company that has to tell Canadian regulators it falls under the law and pay up? What organization in their right mind would want to admit that and have to pay out millions of dollars? This can't be accurate, can it? Am I completely misinterpreting this about the Online News Act? Maybe it's because I haven't really slept well for the past week and my brain is a mite scrambled.

But if this is true, the whole thing is idiotic and pointless. Somebody please straighten this out for me.  

paterson1 wrote:

  If this news still appears on their services regardless how it got there, then they should be paying for it. Meta is responsible for what they are putting out. 

 

So Meta should have been paying publishers when they posted links to their own content?

What if I share a recipe posted by a food blogger? Should Meta pay the blogger? Why is news any different than any other content posted by the creators themselves?

Last edited by RadioAaron (August 4, 2024 11:04 am)

RadioAaron wrote:

paterson1 wrote:

When radio stations change music format, the CRTC expects them to notify the commission when the change happened.

Nope.

Stations don't have to but the CRTC as a courtesy expects them to.

Tell me more Aaron..

paterson1 wrote:

I never have changed a music format, other than shifting a station from MOR to A/C.  

There are no regulatory definitions of music formats. You cannot inform them of something that does not exist.

paterson1 wrote:

Don't really understand why you always defend this $1.18 trillion dollar monopoly mega conglomerate that has  done much more to ruin radio and TV than Bell, Rogers, and Corus put together.  Maybe consider that next time there is a round of layoffs before railing off how terrible and greedy Bell and Rogers are?

Well, I take great issue with your accusations. In no way am I defending Meta or Facebook/Instagram. They've done a lot more to impair Canadian news sources in recent years than even the CRTC! (Although to be fair, it's the government that imposed the Online News Act and not the Commission, who simply is charged with carrying it out.) 

But how a government regulator can expect a giant corporation with millions of dollars at stake to "report on itself" remains beyond me. Why would they if they knew it was going to cost them money? It's extremely stupid to believe Facebook et al. would ever act against its own interests. If the CRTC or some other federal entity doesn't catch it, they sure aren't going to tell them! 

And by the way, I have read countless articles in the last few months from critics like Prof. Michael Geist, roundly considered an expert on this stuff, and Peter Menzies, a former Vice-Chair of the CRTC itself, which have posited convincingly that this law has done nothing to help the small town newspapers or stations that try to bring residents local news. Instead, it has effectively cut many of them off and left them grasping at whatever meagre sources of revenue they can find. Some have gone out of business altogether and others are close to that edge. 

A lot of experts believe this thing was ill considered, and in too many cases, has had the exact opposite effect of what was intended. That's not support of Mr. Zuckerberg and his friends, who I actually have little but contempt for. That's more a condemnation of a very bad law rushed into being without thinking of the unintended consequences - despite repeated warnings from experts that it would have a boomerang effect. 

We're starting to see that now. So please don't put words in my mouth. Meta has long been cheating publishers of their due compensation. But this "solution" is not the answer. Especially when many will tell you it's only made things worse. 

I know you seem to take great delight in contradicting everything I say about almost any topic, but as the links below show, I'm not the only one who worries about this. As you can read in the first story published just a few days ago, many studies back up this worry about what the Act has done to the very Canadian sources it was designed to protect.

The second one is from the CBC's website, a news source I know you trust. 

And the final link is from The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, based at Oxford University. Hardly a biased or fly-by-night organization. I would invite you to read some or all of them and then see if what I'm questioning makes more sense to you. 

One year later, has the Online News Act actually helped the Canadian news industry?

One year after news ban, Canadian journalism is suffering — but Meta isn't budging

The Online News Act has been like MAiD for emerging media in Canada  

Tech giant battle means doom for small news outlets, Trudeau was warned

In Canada’s battle with Big Tech, smaller publishers are caught in the crossfire

If content linking wasn't a net benefit, news orgs wouldn't have full-time staff whose job it is to do just that. It's the very well established foundation of the web.

The screenshotting issue is of the government's own making. Repeal the counter-productive law, and the screenshotting goes away.