Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Chris Trottier

Meta is threatening Canadians.

They will make news inaccessible on Facebook and Instagram if the Online News Act passes. The reason: the law will compel Meta to compensate Canadian journalists when their content is repurposed on those platforms.

Well, I hope they follow through on their threat!

For too long, Meta and Twitter have got rich off the hard work of journalists while paying peanuts.

cbc.ca/news/politics/meta-bloc

44 comments
Salva

@atomicpoet
They already did that in Spain for news aggregators and Google News just left the country stopping driving traffic to those news outlets

moirearty

@atomicpoet Microsoft recently infused cash into DuckDuckGo and now MSN rehosted articles are at the top of nearly every search. Also affects other search engines. This stuff drives me crazy and it’s infuriating the content stealing problem hasn’t been solved after decades.

doodlemania

@atomicpoet alternative take - shutting off the algorithm feed from #meta which simply amplifies the echo chamber makes it so that Canadians must seek out the news - is good for all!

Chris Trottier

@derek It's almost as though they're threatening us with a good time.

Jack Yan (甄爵恩)

@atomicpoet Didnʼt Facebook do this in Australia, then bowed to pressure? Those days without Australian news were fine. We just went to the sites without using Facebook-as-Digg. Wish it stayed news-free, as it showed that no one actually needed Facebook.

Christopher :coffefied:

@atomicpoet

I'm on the fence when it comes to paying news outlets over links.

On hand, I understand the need to find new revenue for struggling newsrooms, but on the other hand this will give blank cheques to companies like Postmedia to spread more misinformation. :blobcatglance:

Mike McCue

@atomicpoet Laws like this can have significant unintended consequences and tend to hurt the smaller players more than the big ones. Are there any lawyers/policy makers out there who know whether this could hamper link sharing across fediverse instances? For example, will Canadian instance owners have to pay publishers for links that point to publisher content? Is there a cutoff in terms of size of audience? If not, there probably should be. @mmasnick what do you think?

Chris Trottier

@mike @mmasnick My own standpoint is that social media platforms need to decide whether they are a utility or a publisher.

If they're a utility, they have no business editorializing or "repurposing" news. Present the news with full transparency.

If they're a publisher, then pay up!

But as it stands, Meta is trying to be a publisher while presenting themselves as a utility.

Mike McCue

@atomicpoet @mmasnick will be interesting to see who/how that is determined legally. For example, if @sfba.social posts a link to a local news story are they now a publisher? Who decides? And further, if there's a risk of falling into the publisher category, does that scare away instance owners from linking to content?

Oh and btw, is this limited to media cos only? What about individuals who create video, blog posts, podcasts or for that matter individuals who create interesting threads?

Chris Trottier

@mike @mmasnick How they define "digital news intermediary":

"...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."

Mike McCue

@atomicpoet @mmasnick hmmm. the way this is written sounds like instance owners that are publicly federated with others would have to pay.

Chris Trottier

@mike @mmasnick Also, there's 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.

Chris Trottier

@mike @mmasnick The question is whether a Mastodon instance will ever have a strategic advantage over news businesses.

As they exist now, I don't think this is the case. And I don't think there's a Mastodon instance that has any prominent market position.

Chris Trottier

@mike @mmasnick The bigger question, of course, is when *would* a mastodon instance have a strategic advantage of news businesses?

In a court of law, I don't think mstdn.ca or vancity.social could ever demonstrate any kind of market dominance over Canadian news media.

Chris Trottier

@mike @mmasnick So the other question, of course, is what is a "messaging service the primary purpose of which is to allow persons to communicate with each other privately"?

More specifically, how do we define "private"?

Is it a message sent between two private citizens?

Or does this pertain to visibility?

DELETED

@atomicpoet @mike @mmasnick
I'd say private means the message goes to intended person(s) and no one else knows about it. Not only can't see it but doesn't know it's there.

Chris Trottier replied to DELETED

@Cassandra @mike @mmasnick But is that how governments define "private"?

DELETED replied to Chris

@atomicpoet @mike @mmasnick
I doubt there is one standard meaning for "private" across our government (HIPAA, IRS, FTC, CIA) let alone others.

Lee 🌏

@atomicpoet @mike @mmasnick
If a Mastodon instance is not for profit, then isn't this all null and void anyway?
You can't take a revenue share from a company that makes no profit from sharing links.
Or will it be pay up and get your users to pay...?

Mike McCue

@atomicpoet @mmasnick BTW, I would not put it past Facebook to ultimately realize that this is an awesome way to shutdown the public fediverse... they will have no problem paying this fee in exchange for shutting down all the smaller instance owners in the fediverse. Then they can claim to be open on activitypub knowing they safely suppressed the alternatives.

The biggest players are expert at using laws like this to their advantage so policy makers have to think about this before they act.

Chris Trottier

@mike @mmasnick If Meta tries this, I will fund a lawsuit myself -- out of my own pocket.

Jim Parsons

@atomicpoet @mike @mmasnick

"FloorWax-AND-DesertTopping-as-a-Service” is what #Section230 is all about…

• #SiliconValley #BigTech #VC’s have been dining out on it, liability free, for decades
[#Surveillance #Privacy #SurveiilanceCapitalsim]

• #SCOTUS still scratchin’ heads
[#Democracy #AI #TechnoFascism]

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/20

Steady as she goes…

@atomicpoet @mike @mmasnick

"FloorWax-AND-DesertTopping-as-a-Service” is what #Section230 is all about…

• #SiliconValley #BigTech #VC’s have been dining out on it, liability free, for decades
[#Surveillance #Privacy #SurveiilanceCapitalsim]

• #SCOTUS still scratchin’ heads
[#Democracy #AI #TechnoFascism]

Mike Masnick ✅

@atomicpoet @mike I don't think that's an accurate representation at all. The issue is if USERS are posting links to news, then making Meta pay for... sending those sites traffic. It's not "Meta publishing news." It's their users. But then the publishers trying to charge Meta a tax for it.

On top of that, those same publishers have social media teams trying to drive more people to send them traffic from social media... Their actions suggest they get value out of it today w/o payment.

Chris Trottier

@mmasnick @mike The bill states that "a messaging service the primary purpose of which is to allow persons to communicate with each other privately" does not apply.

Nor should it apply -- for obvious reasons.

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

@atomicpoet @mmasnick @mike

> The issue is if USERS are posting links to news, then making Meta pay for...

Just like journalists post on media sites and make the publishers pay for their content.

This analogy is of course imperfect, but useful, I believe. Meta has editorial control (they block and manage visibility of posts), and they make money on ads around the posts, after all.

Just like a media site which has editorial control over articles and makes money on ads published along them.

mosqueeto

@atomicpoet @mike @mmasnick
"Utility" vs "Publisher" : They are not intrinsically polar opposite roles. It's not binary. They are just two points in a many-dimensional space.

Chris Trottier

@mosqueeto @mike @mmasnick Which is convenient for entities like Facebook that abuse their market dominant position to decimate local news.

And maybe I would grant that Facebook is just a utility if they were hands-off regarding how news displays on their sites.

But that's not the case. They're clearly editorializing and re-purposing news, for which they monetize for their own benefit.

Pusher Of Pixels

@atomicpoet @mike @mmasnick

Imagine GOP and MTG (or whoever your stupidest most evil natl politician is) wielding the power to decide who this affects.

That's what you're asking for. News outlets need to adapt to modern economics. You can't force it the world to stay in the past successfully, but you can grease the skids for fascists by making control of media easier.

Lee 🌏

@atomicpoet
We had this in Australia, but instead of the money going to "journalists," it went to right-wing media organisations.

aethervision :ziltoid:

@atomicpoet @kidehen To paraphrase Princess Leia, “The more they tighten their grip, the more accounts will slip through their fingers.”

Adam Dalliance

@atomicpoet I hope they follow through too!

But I am always and completely against a link tax, Facebook are in the right for once. They should not have to pay to link to a site or embed a descriptor card in that link and if anyone tries to make them pay for that they ought to just stop the links.

Dr. Oblivious

@atomicpoet Here's an idea. Maybe Canadians should tell Zuck to fuck off. Don't let that human skidmark hold your government hostage for his garbage platform.

JohnW

@atomicpoet While I absolutely believe that companies like Meta and Google should pay journalists fairly, I don't believe this bill has enough clarity (or just haven't found it yet).

The part I find obscure (and I've seen debate about this further up the thread)... is that what will be determined to be payable, and what will not? As was mentioned, Users sharing links to those articles is more in the line of public conversation. Maybe there could be a tiered system based on analytics that shows how much an article is shared beyond the OP.

I think the bill needs more work, specifically in that area.

@atomicpoet While I absolutely believe that companies like Meta and Google should pay journalists fairly, I don't believe this bill has enough clarity (or just haven't found it yet).

The part I find obscure (and I've seen debate about this further up the thread)... is that what will be determined to be payable, and what will not? As was mentioned, Users sharing links to those articles is more in the line of public conversation. Maybe there could be a tiered system based on analytics that shows how...

Jeff Jarvis

@atomicpoet
Facebook and Google do not repurpose the news content; they link to it. As Spanish publishers discovered when they had their legislative hissy fit, it hurt them and the public but not the platforms when Google News left. BTW, the baksheesh in the Canadian bill will go to, among others, an American hedge fund.

Fifi Lamoura

@atomicpoet Agreed and all that happened when Facebook did this in Australia to try to prevent a similar law going through is that people started, gasp, getting their news from news sites and downloaded ABC's news app (ABC is a public broadcaster). It was actually good for news and news media!

On the other hand, the Canadian law is modeled on the terrible Australian law that was basically Morrison giving Murdoch a gift (Newscorp owns a lot of Australia's mainstream media) and it took a lot of fighting for independent news outlets to get any look in or consideration at all and there's only now some talk about ABC/SBS (the public broadcasters) to even get considered for payment. It's a crappy law that is basically a money grab by corporate media that sucks and spreads disinfo anyway.

@atomicpoet Agreed and all that happened when Facebook did this in Australia to try to prevent a similar law going through is that people started, gasp, getting their news from news sites and downloaded ABC's news app (ABC is a public broadcaster). It was actually good for news and news media!

On the other hand, the Canadian law is modeled on the terrible Australian law that was basically Morrison giving Murdoch a gift (Newscorp owns a lot of Australia's mainstream media) and it took a lot of fighting...

Patrick

@atomicpoet Threatening us with a good time, you mean? I see no downside to them pulling out and letting people get news from reality.

Tim Richards

@atomicpoet @the_Effekt they tried doing that in Australia then backed down, after a very embarrassing period where they had blocked all sorts of useful websites including emergency-related ones.

VWestlife

@atomicpoet The world would be better off if everyone stopped getting their news from Facebook.

Urzl

@atomicpoet Don't they get paid the same for a click through from Facebook as from anywhere else? I don't understand what Facebook is expected to pay for exactly.

Are people meant to pass links around in hardcopy on business cards or something? I don't see the significance of the intermediary service in this transaction.

Aron Pilhofer 🍩

@atomicpoet Absolute fantasy. Twitter is still losing money and benefits not a lick financially from journalism. Facebook couldn’t care less. News is of less than no value to them. (Google very different story, btw.)

tanya tussing

@atomicpoet 🇨🇦 Stand strong! Don't back down. Who needs Facebook & Instagram when you could be on Mastodon?

🍁 Come join us! 🍁

Go Up