11–20 of 101 posts
Does this mean HN will have to pay for all the links too? Tired of this overregulation
It so nice to see megacorps not being allowed to whatever they like as in the US. The EU has regulations and standards. If you don't follow them you can't just try to sue the body. Just follow the rules like you're supposed to. It's quite simply really.
They already did this with Canada. Meta decided to stop showing news links in Canada. [1] Presumably, it would choose the same thing here. [1] https://www.facebook.com/sureshsingaratnam/posts/so-meta-is-...
These hypercorps and their CEOs act like giant fucking children, and rather than abide by a ruling being told to play fair, they just decide to take their ball and go home.
Good riddance. The sooner social media dies, the better off humanity will be.
Does this mean HN will have to pay for all the links too? Tired of this overregulation
Do you think Meta is asked to pay for the titles ?
(a) the content is reproduced on the service or is otherwise placed on the service; or
(b) a link to the content is provided on the service; or
(c) an extract of the content is provided on the service.
Which quite literally means that they consider a post that only contains hyperlink (b) or a link and only a title (even just the title would fall under (c)) to be as bad as a social media site ripping off the whole article!
This was the same conflation used by the supporters of the law and pretty much every news article about it before it was passed, basically all of which dishonestly claimed that social media sites were doing (a) when they were mostly only posting a title and sentence or two synopsis (that is supplied by the news site itself in its meta tags!!)
It so nice to see megacorps not being allowed to whatever they like as in the US. The EU has regulations and standards. If you don't follow them you can't just try to sue the body. Just follow the rules like you're supposed to. It's quite simply really.
I'm very much in two minds about this because "news" is not a morally neutral category in itself, such as with similar laws benefiting News Corp in Australia, but it's clear that Meta/FB is a much worse unrestrained actor.
Why won't Meta just stop showing Italian news now?
Why do they show Italian news before? Because it makes them money.
It so nice to see megacorps not being allowed to whatever they like as in the US. The EU has regulations and standards. If you don't follow them you can't just try to sue the body. Just follow the rules like you're supposed to. It's quite simply really.
They already did this with Canada. Meta decided to stop showing news links in Canada. [1] Presumably, it would choose the same thing here. [1] https://www.facebook.com/sureshsingaratnam/posts/so-meta-is-...
Does this mean HN will have to pay for all the links too? Tired of this overregulation
> Tired of this overregulation Why ? When the alternative is to let companies to whatever makes the number go up at the expense of everyone else, regulation is the only thing to protect normal people.
If you send traffic to some e-commerce platform through an affiliate link, you are the one who gets paid. These companies are instead trying to rig the system in such a way that the affiliate would be forced to pay them. It's an absurd and desperate proposal that deserves to be rejected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think Meta is asked to pay for the titles ?
They are in Australia, and it’s probably safe to assume this law would be pretty similar to ours. In our version, Part 52B explicitly renders these three things as being exactly the same for the purposes of the law: (a) the content is reproduced on the service or is otherwise placed on the service; or (b) a link to the content is provided on the service; or (c) an extract of the content is provided on the service. Wh…