Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Chris's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
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."

13 Mar 2023 at 19:59 | Open on mastodon.social
12 comments
Mike McCue

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

13 Mar 2023 at 20:01 | Open on flipboard.social
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.

13 Mar 2023 at 20:04 | Open on mastodon.social
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.

13 Mar 2023 at 20:06 | Open on mastodon.social
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.

13 Mar 2023 at 20:08 | Open on mastodon.social
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?

13 Mar 2023 at 20:16 | Open on mastodon.social
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.

15 Mar 2023 at 7:06 | Open on artisan.chat
Chris Trottier replied to DELETED

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

15 Mar 2023 at 7:07 | Open on mastodon.social
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.

15 Mar 2023 at 7:31 | Open on artisan.chat
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...?

13 Mar 2023 at 22:45 | Open on aus.social
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.

13 Mar 2023 at 20:09 | Open on flipboard.social
Chris Trottier

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

13 Mar 2023 at 20:10 | Open on mastodon.social
Go Up