• BuoyantCitrus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I did, because it tries to regulate merely linking to content, something I consider absurd. What I did not say is that it is “ridiculous to ask them to share some of the profit they make from Canadian work with Canada”. So I responded as such. I’m not terribly interested in engaging with someone who puts words in my mouth. If you’re curious for more of my thoughts on this topic, I intend to respond to the interesting comment by @[email protected] when I have time to be more thoughtful.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s exactly what this law does, it makes them obligated to pay taxes to the government to compensate Canadian news agencies because they make profit off of them.

      https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c18_1.html

      “Overview Many Canadians access news content through digital intermediaries. Bill C-18 would enact the Online News Act (the Act), which proposes a regime to regulate digital platforms that act as intermediaries in Canada’s news media ecosystem in order to enhance fairness in the Canadian digital news market. The Bill introduces a new bargaining framework intended to support news businesses to secure fair compensation when their news content is made available by dominant digital news intermediaries and generates economic gain.”

      So, again, how is it unfair to compensate the people whose work you profit from?

      • wvenable
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Does your employer pay you by paying taxes and then government distributes them to you? If there was a real business here, then an arrangement would be made between Facebook and these news organizations. Facebook wouldn’t want to lose out on the profit so they’d pay news agencies for the content. But the truth this, the news agencies are profiting far more than Facebook is from this arrangement. They literally need the government to step in because there is no actual business here.

        The news agencies can absolutely pull out of Facebook. They can opt out of summaries and photos. But they don’t.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Eh…

          Universal healthcare, roads, free education…

          My employer pays taxes and I profit from it.

          You think an arrangement could be made by individual news agencies where the freaking government couldn’t? Meta would have just blocked them one by one instead of all at once.

          News agencies don’t profit because people don’t click and they actually lose profit because these companies are responsible for people losing faith in traditional media by intentionally pushing disinformation because fear and hate increases engagement and they don’t care about the consequences.

          • wvenable
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            My employer pays taxes and I profit from it.

            That’s not what I mean and you know it. Your employer pays you directly for your services because it’s a benefit to them. Which is basically how all commerce works.

            You think an arrangement could be made by individual news agencies where the freaking government couldn’t?

            No. I think the government has to force this business arrangement because it’s completely backwards. Media companies benefit from linking (they’d literally have no traffic if they didn’t) and they’re trying to extract some value where none exists.

            News agencies don’t profit because people don’t click

            And stores won’t profit if people don’t buy stuff. And streaming services don’t profit if nobody subscribes. That’s life. If, as a media company, you’ve giving up all your value by providing summaries and images then that’s your problem. If Tim Hortons can’t sell any donuts because they give out a free Timbit and a shot of coffee, it is not for the government to fix that. They should just stop doing it.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So Meta would pay for the service media companies provide then, glad we agree, don’t know why you’re arguing then.

              The government is forcing the arrangement, the companies decided to just pull out if they had to pay their fair share.

              Media companies lost traffic because of social media but they bring traffic to social media. If they don’t provide summaries or images then they won’t get promoted. See what’s happening? You’re arguing in favor of letting US private companies control the financing and promotion of Canadian media.

              You realise you’re defending companies that together make trillions yet pay next to nothing in taxes in their own country (and pay nothing in Canada)?

              • wvenable
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                So Meta would pay for the service media companies provide then, glad we agree, don’t know why you’re arguing then.

                Media companies should pay Meta for the service they provide. It’s literally advertising. Media companies post this material themselves. But if media companies are providing a service that’s worth paying for then they should simply withhold that service until Meta pays. That’s how the free market works. Tim Hortons doesn’t give out free donuts and then go to the government and force you to pay for them if you take one. No, you just buy the damn donut if it’s worth buying.

                The government is forcing the arrangement, the companies decided to just pull out if they had to pay their fair share.

                If Meta benefited from this arrangement they’d pay. Is Lemmy also morally responsible to pay media companies because there is a link to this article with a summary?

                Media companies lost traffic because of social media but they bring traffic to social media.

                Media companies lost traffic because the Internet invalidates their business model. Linking is the only thing they have left – they should be thankful for it.

                You realise you’re defending companies that together make trillions yet pay next to nothing in taxes in their own country (and pay nothing in Canada)?

                Just because someone is an asshole doesn’t mean they’re entitled to less justice. If something is wrong, it’s wrong for everyone.

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  “Media companies post this material themselves.”

                  Didn’t know that when I share an article from Radio-Canada I’m acting in their name 🤔

                  "Is Lemmy also morally responsible to pay media companies because there is a link to this article with a summary? "

                  If it becomes profitable for the instance’s owner then yes.

                  "Media companies lost traffic because the Internet invalidates their business model. "

                  It doesn’t because without social media you would still need to check articles on their website instead of just scanning a summary and some pictures in 5 seconds. I’m old enough to have been on the internet before any social medias as we imagine them today and new corps didn’t mind it back then because people actually had to go on their website to see news, they would read the journal online instead of reading it in paper form, that’s all, now people read snippets on Facebook and don’t check the source or the physical version.

                  • wvenable
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    "Is Lemmy also morally responsible to pay media companies because there is a link to this article with a summary? " If it becomes profitable for the instance’s owner then yes.

                    You’re arguing for the destruction of the web at this point. Freely linking to content is the backbone of the whole thing.

                    It doesn’t because without social media you would still need to check articles on their website instead of just scanning a summary and some pictures in 5 seconds.

                    You’re basically saying that actual journalism itself has no value – if a 2 line summary and single picture is the entire value to someone then why is anyone paying for this? An AI can make that for free. I could be a journalist if all the value is a summary and picture. You’re making such a twisted argument with this whole idea that people just read the summary, never click the article, and somehow somebody needs to make money from the article that nobody reads. Media companies provide the summary and pictures to Facebook so that they’ll click on the article in the first place.