Ottawa pulls advertising, escalating showdown with Facebook and Instagram

Post by brightlancer » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:20 AM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #97

wvenable wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issue with this, is this a problem that needs to be solved? Do we need to guarantee monetization of every human interaction? If my friend and I go a cafe, see a newspaper headline, and have a discussion about that headline without ever opening that newspaper should the cafe have to pay for that discussion? Why should any media adjacent interaction anywhere happen without payment? If the cafe is playing music, they…

This is a perfect example of how people confuse causality and responsibility. They are not the same. Trying to monetize and compensate for every externality is absurd. If I make coffee at home that causes a coffee shop to lose out on Revenue. Surely I'm not responsible for paying the coffee shop for the Lost Revenue. If I do go to the coffee shop, should the coffee shop have to share their revenue with the car compan…

Post by throwawaylinux » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:25 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #141

stubybubs wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, it's pretty reasonable. This is what it looks like when you really treat your party as separate from governance. They are not using public funds for their advertising. Contrast this with the last Conservative government, which made all of its publicly funded announcements from "The Harper Government" instead of "The Government of Canada." https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2012/06/harper-governm...

The point is not public funds. The point is, in public they behave like FB is so horrible no reasonable person can use their services, but when it comes to using the services not for public benefit, but for their personal benefit, turn out FB is not so bad after all. Evidently, using FB is beneficial for them. They are OK with benefitting themselves, but withhold same benefits from the public in the name of political…

Post by defrost » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 2:45 AM UTC

kevincox wrote: post #140

regimeld wrote: post #11

As a Canadian, I find the current government's policy on the internet to be very 1990's. I fully support Google's and Meta's decision to remove Canadian news from their platforms. This is a complete "own-goal" by the government.

I'm also Canadian and feel the same. I don't like Google or Meta but this is just the media trying to be greedy. If the incoming likes from Google were harmful they would have configured a robots.txt. They are just trying to lobby laws to get extra money. But they were too full of themselves to realize that they need Google and Meta at least an order of magnitude more than Google or Meta needs them. The same thing ha…

    Since the News Media Bargaining Code took effect, the tech firms had inked more than 30 deals with media outlets compensating them for content which generated clicks and advertising dollars, said the Treasury department report, published late Thursday.

    "At least some of these agreements have enabled news businesses to, in particular, employ additional journalists and make other valuable investments to assist their operations," said the report.

    "While views on the success or otherwise of the Code will invariably differ, we consider it is reasonable to conclude that the Code has been a success to date."

    The legislation, known as the News Media Bargaining Code, has enabled Australian news organizations to extract more than $200 million (almost $150 million US) in the year since it went into effect.

    As a result, the public Australian Broadcasting Corporation can place at least fifty new journalists in underserved parts of the country, while the McPherson Media Group, which publishes such papers as the Yarrawonga Chronicle and the Deniliquin Pastoral Times, expects tech money to fund up to 30 percent of editorial salaries.

Post by o1y32 » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 3:13 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #37

The funniest part: > But the Liberal government’s decision does not extend to the party. Liberal Party of Canada spokesperson Parker Lund said in a statement that the party would continue to advertise on Meta-owned platforms. According to the company’s ad library, the party spent nearly $15,000 on over 1,000 ads in the past month. So: we would not deal with FB because it's evil, unless of course it could help us pers…

Post by brightlancer » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 3:16 AM UTC

arrosenberg wrote: post #105

wvenable wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This theoretical cafe is monetizing the fact that people come and hang out and have discussions and order some coffee. The place is filled with games and magazines and newspapers that anyone can open a view the advertising within. But I never bother, I just read the headlines and discuss those without ever looking inside.

> This theoretical cafe is monetizing the fact that people come and hang out and have discussions and order some coffee. Therein lies the difference. 1. People come and hang out - can't effectively do this on Meta sites, though their VR push seems aimed at trying to fulfill this need. I would also put "read the newspaper" under this category. 2. Have discussions - for varying definitions of "discussion", this is wher…