271–280 of 503 posts
Most Canadian media is owned by asset-stripping American private equity firms, just like American newspapers. They just want to get paid, and have figured out a particular way that Canadian, Australian, German, and Californian legislators can be duped into it.
Now that I'm weaning myself off of reddit, my favorite "toilet reading" is news.google.com But since I'm in Canada, I suppose I'll go back to RSS or maybe AP news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not really advertising when the user is specifically searching for news content. That's like saying the halibut fisherman is getting free advertising when you go to a restaurant and ask to see the menu.
That's not a good analogy because news sites don't sell their articles to Google, they get paid when users visit their sites. Google is promoting their websites and actively directing users to them, for free. Do I need to pay NYT when I recommend an article to my friends?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how we can call this nationalistic politics. I'm sure if a (hypothetical) Canadian big-tech impacted news organizations similarly, they would also have been a target of this law. Many of the biggest tech have origins in US and any country trying to make a law regulating businesses and technology within its borders is bound to impact American companies one way or the other. We can take the easy route and c…
Nobody denies its their right, but that doesn't mean it's not a very stupid action, motivated by dumb nationalism. You can't handwave circumstances away, as if the legislators don't know it is a cashgrab against foreign corporations and genuinely believe Google and Facebook are Canadian companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah Google never ever does this. They do not want money they just work for kisses and they are not evil at all.
Every company tries to earn money, that's not a problem. The problem is when a company tries to legislate themselves to be owed money, or eliminate competition via various means, that it becomes a problem. Companies should earn my by building good competitive products.
Going a step further, I think google should stop crawling websites that are paywalled. When I search for something, I want to see results that I can click on. Not some snippets from NYT, WSJ, Bloomberg and others which are heavily paywalled.
Most Canadian media is owned by asset-stripping American private equity firms, just like American newspapers. They just want to get paid, and have figured out a particular way that Canadian, Australian, German, and Californian legislators can be duped into it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although I disagree with this kind of law: Was it just linking? Or was it providing a useful summary that essentially renders no need to click the provided link? + the link Otherwise I can see why Google and Meta got the law, while Reddit, Apple news and others don't.
Reddit and Apple News will have the law applied to them as well, since the law doesn't include a list of sites affected, just the criteria under which affected sites fall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>While Canada's bill may not be well-tuned, it is a welcome first attempt. The problem is media companies have been pushing this exact blueprint for d years. decades. It is a terrible, terrible template. If countries want to tax big tech and give the money to media organizations, they should be honest about it. Laws like this distort reality. >the current balance between news organizations and internet brokers isn't…
> This doesn't make sense. Newspapers want links to their stories. Newspapers want monetization. There are three ways linking to stories equal monetization: * Newspapers get enough ad money through these link. This mostly doesn't work. * Newspapers cut their costs and deliver shitty clickbait. * Newspapers get funded by "philantropy". This ranges from newspapers independently funded by trust funds to newspapers being…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many people who would otherwise be appalled at laws like this seem to want to rationalize this because its specifically targeting Google and Meta. It's not just a matter of the targeted companies being Google and Meta, even though these two especially deserve it. It's the simple realization that good journalism requires good money, and that the current balance between news organizations and internet brokers isn't u…
Don't want people gazing on your property? Erect a fence. Nothing prevents media sites from implementing access controls to only allow paying customers.