491–500 of 503 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should one have to do this? The slippery slope of what is ok goes straight from this to copyright laundering via LLMs.
Why shouldn't they? This is basic fair use. Google is giving them an out they don't have to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's no imbalance here: newspapers produce content, search engines/social networks surface and link to it. The imbalance is that as platforms , newspapers cross-subsidize content. Interesting headlines attract readers to the newspaper, but once in hand readers are likely to continue reading the other, less unique articles. (See also why newspapers carry sports scores and comics). An investigative report is by it…
Personally I'd be happy to see the ad driven model die. It used to be that people bought newspapers or didn't read them. They still had some ads, granted, but far less intrusive than today's web ads with their colours and animations. I'm huge into supporting good journalism, and think we need some sort of intervention here. But I'm very very strongly opposed to this new law. If news sites want to charge for their con…
This is the 'trade journalism' model. Here, good journalism still exists, but the price is more than most people would afford. People buy trade journals when the news is important, with direct financial implications that justify the cost of admission.
General journalism, however, is something close to a public service. It's better in a vague, hand-wavy way to have an educated citizen body that's informed about current affairs, but few individual citizens derive much value from their own knowledge. (This is also why people tend to gravitate towards 'entertaining' news, by some definition. Come for the sports scores, stay for current events.)
In this model, the benefit of news is externalized. I benefit when other people are educated. This is a classic market failure, and it suggests that a reader-pays framework will underprovide news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What claims can be made with current information in your opinion? Is the Trudeau regime , just another run of the mill Canadian government or possibly something more sinister (or at least more corrupt).
I don't claim to be super-knowledgeable on this topic but IMO the current government is marginally competent and so far I'd say they seem about as corrupt as the Liberals normally are, which is to say: unacceptably. I'm not sure they're any worse than previous iterations, but history will decide. The emergency measures act stuff seems like it was mishandled to me. I find the leadership to be heavy-handed with the vir…
If it does have a material global impact on carbon emissions it will only be a result of somehow shaming other countries to reduce their own emissions. While I can’t find any estimate of how much the carbon tax will reduce emissions, our empty country only has 1.89% to work with. So the forest fires are not going to stop as a result of the tax alone.
I suspect what will happen is other countries will innovate their way out of the problem while Canadians embrace pointless atonement leaving the country weaker and poorer as a result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't claim to be super-knowledgeable on this topic but IMO the current government is marginally competent and so far I'd say they seem about as corrupt as the Liberals normally are, which is to say: unacceptably. I'm not sure they're any worse than previous iterations, but history will decide. The emergency measures act stuff seems like it was mishandled to me. I find the leadership to be heavy-handed with the vir…
My take on carbon tax is it is mostly an income redistribution scheme which moves wealth from the middle to lower classes while reducing the size of the middle class. If it does have a material global impact on carbon emissions it will only be a result of somehow shaming other countries to reduce their own emissions. While I can’t find any estimate of how much the carbon tax will reduce emissions, our empty country o…
I know what you're saying about our contribution to emissions, but I feel like the most basic principle of good faith when you're trying to get another party to do something like this is to deal with your own shit first, otherwise it's just hypocrisy. Every country in the world can look at their own contributions and say "well, most of it isn't our fault, so why should we fix it until somebody else does?". Rightly or wrongly, Canada likes to think of itself as a world leader, so let's put our big boy pants on and step up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then maybe the government should focus instead on forcing them to be open?
How would a Canadian government force an American company to be more open?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once you remove physical violence as a mean of interaction, you gain something else which would be violence by any other name. Government minimization is favored the most by those who would gain from the lack of counterbalance. In the case of market economy, if you can't use violence, then the world would be split into natural monopolies and monopolies after market consolidation. Everyone else will be feudalized beca…
Ok, now explain how free market economies have improved the quality of life and lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My take on carbon tax is it is mostly an income redistribution scheme which moves wealth from the middle to lower classes while reducing the size of the middle class. If it does have a material global impact on carbon emissions it will only be a result of somehow shaming other countries to reduce their own emissions. While I can’t find any estimate of how much the carbon tax will reduce emissions, our empty country o…
Entirely plausible, Canada as a country coasts on our relative affluence and resource base far too much, I'd like to see us pushing money into R&D for technological solutions as well. I know what you're saying about our contribution to emissions, but I feel like the most basic principle of good faith when you're trying to get another party to do something like this is to deal with your own shit first, otherwise it's…
My read on this is that news organizations are upset that Google/Facebook are taking profits by providing cached content that makes people not want to actually click their links. If this is the primary concern, though, then wouldn't it make more sense to draft a law regulating content caching, rather than the pay-per-click approach? It seems like a law that said "Sites that serve any content which wasn't part of a 'y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I'm not willing to pay for a paywall then the "best" content is not behind a paywall, because I won't read it. My definition of "best" includes my ability to actually read the content under my terms.
If I ask you what is the best restaurant in town, will you answer that it's your mommas house because there you always eat for free? Cost has nothing to do with determining the quality of a search result, and search engines shouldn't discriminate against paywalled content. But I think it's a good idea to let users like you check a box to hide paywalled results.
No, I won't answer my mommas house because you can't just show up and eat there as a restauraunt. It doesn't fit the search criteria you asked for.
If you ask what the best restauraunt in town is, I'll give you a restauraunt.
If you ask what the best restauruant in town is, I won't send you to a place where you can buy a "best restauraunts in town guide" for 5 bucks, because that's not what you're asking for.