It makes no word of for profit / non profit, it defines the intermediary posting links as basically anything more popular than the news outlet they are linking to and gives the media outlets all sorts of power to complain and escalate if they think linking is unfair.
Application
6 This Act applies in respect of a digital news intermediary if, having regard to the following factors, there is a significant bargaining power imbalance between its operator and news businesses:
(a) the size of the intermediary or the operator;
(b) whether the market for the intermediary gives the operator a strategic advantage over news businesses; and
(c) whether the intermediary occupies a prominent market position.
Are you making money personally by posting media links on Lemmy?
No.
This is 100% about billionaire anti-democracy bad actors having control over what people see. And profiting by doing so.
It’s UNBELIEVABLE how zillionaires Zuckerberg and Google have managed to convince people that their own crappy behaviors are all to blame on the Liberal Canadian government. It didn’t have to be this way. Zuckerberg and Google CHOSE THIS.
Didn’t say the bill applied to users AT ALL but does apply to the intermediary hosting the links… IE lemmy.ca could be targeted due to the vague broad definition. If Lemmy.ca became a popular source of information news outlets could demand arbitration or try to harass lemmy.ca legally. Which even if there was nothing for them to win could be costly.
Show an example from the bill please I have done so to highlight that it vaguely defines who is liable. How does this help the people by charging for listing links?
skipped over this better definision in the bill
digital news intermediary means an online communications platform, including a search engine or social media service, that is subject to the legislative authority of Parliament and that makes news content produced by news outlets available to persons in Canada. It does not include an online communications platform that is a messaging service the primary purpose of which is to allow persons to communicate with each other privately. (intermédiaire de nouvelles numériques)
lemmy instances would fall under a social media service
news content means content — in any format, including an audio or audiovisual format — that reports on, investigates or explains current issues or events of public interest and includes such content that an Indigenous news outlet makes available by means of Indigenous storytelling. (contenu de nouvelles)
Making available of news content
(2) For the purposes of this Act, news content is made available if
(a) the news content, or any portion of it, is reproduced; or
(b) **access to the news content, or any portion of it, is facilitated by any means, including an index, aggregation or ranking of news content.**
Links would fall under “is facilitated by any means, including an index”
Why are you defending anti-democratic multi-billionaire influence peddlers META and Google instead of people? We have to be profiting by linking news items to be in violation. We are NOT profiting here.
Who said I was? It is a bad / vague law… I think most of the traditional news outlets are just as bad trying to milk money with clickbait and one sided stories.
They will charge the instance hosting the link. Like they where going to charge Facebook not the users.
No. Stop spreading propaganda.
Well here is the law…
It makes no word of for profit / non profit, it defines the intermediary posting links as basically anything more popular than the news outlet they are linking to and gives the media outlets all sorts of power to complain and escalate if they think linking is unfair.
You can go read the law?
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-18/royal-assent
Application 6 This Act applies in respect of a digital news intermediary if, having regard to the following factors, there is a significant bargaining power imbalance between its operator and news businesses: (a) the size of the intermediary or the operator; (b) whether the market for the intermediary gives the operator a strategic advantage over news businesses; and (c) whether the intermediary occupies a prominent market position.Are you making money personally by posting media links on Lemmy?
No.
This is 100% about billionaire anti-democracy bad actors having control over what people see. And profiting by doing so.
It’s UNBELIEVABLE how zillionaires Zuckerberg and Google have managed to convince people that their own crappy behaviors are all to blame on the Liberal Canadian government. It didn’t have to be this way. Zuckerberg and Google CHOSE THIS.
Didn’t say the bill applied to users AT ALL but does apply to the intermediary hosting the links… IE lemmy.ca could be targeted due to the vague broad definition. If Lemmy.ca became a popular source of information news outlets could demand arbitration or try to harass lemmy.ca legally. Which even if there was nothing for them to win could be costly.
You’re wrong by that as well. This law hands control of news back to the people.
Show an example from the bill please I have done so to highlight that it vaguely defines who is liable. How does this help the people by charging for listing links?
skipped over this better definision in the bill
lemmy instances would fall under a social media service
Making available of news content (2) For the purposes of this Act, news content is made available if (a) the news content, or any portion of it, is reproduced; or (b) **access to the news content, or any portion of it, is facilitated by any means, including an index, aggregation or ranking of news content.**Links would fall under “is facilitated by any means, including an index”
Why are you defending anti-democratic multi-billionaire influence peddlers META and Google instead of people? We have to be profiting by linking news items to be in violation. We are NOT profiting here.
Who said I was? It is a bad / vague law… I think most of the traditional news outlets are just as bad trying to milk money with clickbait and one sided stories.