this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
72 points (97.4% liked)

Canada

7203 readers
272 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Do you want to kill the internet? This is how you kill the internet.

This is how you isolate your journalism industry to get zero traffic

[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Seems like that would hurt Canadian journalism rather than kill the internet?

[–] Overzeetop@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The whole idea the internet is interlinked sites. Then again the whole idea if the internet was also a robust, reliable, multi-nodal, non-corporate architecture for redundant transmission of data, so we’re headed into the shitter already.

But, more to the point, if you start charging people for links you break the purpose of being able to link things. It will kill Canadian journalism first, but it will wound a portion of the internet in the process. And if it spreads it will do net harm to both sides, everywhere.

[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 year ago
  1. You already are charged by Google the price is your data and ads
  2. The target is 1 billion dollar + entities (based on my skim)

Just like the original comment this seems like wild overstatement.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If these websites were someone's blog linking to a news article, I'd agree. They're not and they're not merely linking content. This isn't the open web, it's not the internet. These are platforms with captive audiences. Once you put that in the thought process, it flips the argument on its head.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And if Facebook and Google simply refuse to link to the sites that charge the money to link to them. What will happen then?

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's simple, they can either take it or leave it. If the assessments of profitability of this content are accurate, it will still be profitable for Google and Meta if they cave to demands. They'll hem and haw for a while, but they'll take the deal. At the end of the day, they're capitalist corporations, and they won't simply leave money on the floor.

That $234 M would be roughly 2% of the $11.2 B in revenues the two platforms are making in Canada. Does the Canadian news segment account for more than 2% of that revenue?

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not sure there's much reason for Meta to cave: Meta's Canada news ban fails to dent Facebook usage

Daily active users of Facebook and time spent on the app in Canada have stayed roughly unchanged since parent company Meta started blocking news there at the start of August, according to data shared by Similarweb, a digital analytics company that tracks traffic on websites and apps, at Reuters' request.

Another analytics firm, Data.ai, likewise told Reuters that its data was not showing any meaningful change to usage of the platform in Canada in August.

Doesn't seem like news was providing Meta much value.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If I was the head of either of those organizations, which clearly I'm not, I would leave it. I I don't want to set a precedent for a global link taxation system I'd have to pay on all of my traffic and all countries. And once it's demonstrated on news, slippery slope applies, and then applies to More and more linked content until it applies to all links.

So I think foregoing the Canadian profit would make sense from a business perspective

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Too bad for the platforms the floodgates have already been opened. Australia has already implemented similar legislation in which they caved.

https://www.wired.com/story/australia-media-code-facebook-google/

I don't think it's in the nature of capitalist corporations to put long term strategy over short term profitability.

[–] dortydoozer@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

"Then, at 1 am on February 26, 2021, news content started to reappear, reversing users’ feeds to how they always looked. But behind the scenes, tech’s relationship with the media had permanently shifted.

Google and Facebook did not leave; they paid up, striking deals with news organizations to pay for the content they display on their sites for the first time. The code was formally approved on March 2, 2021, writing into law that tech platforms had to negotiate a price to pay news publishers for their content"

I think you should take note how they made the law after the deals were struck. Canada however has already ascended their version into law, prior to the deals. There is nothing to negotiate in Canada. Abide by the law or get out.

[–] bradmont@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Facebook and Google have already destroyed the internet, by making hundreds of millions of people think they are the internet.