Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canadian government reaches deal with Google on Online News Act

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 213 posts

Re: Canadian government reaches deal with Google on Online News Act

#201

Post by SECProto »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #193
SECProto wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a Canadian this is disappointing to me. I disagree with the law. As a Canadian, this is exciting to me. I agree strongly with the goals of the law (while holding nitpicks about the actual wording). I think the fact that Google came to an agreement shows that they don't have a fundamental issue with the law either (or they could've just withdrawn from our market, like Meta). It's a win for independent media in Ca…

> I think the fact that Google came to an agreement shows that they don't have a fundamental issue with the law either (or they could've just withdrawn from our market, like Meta). That's a strange thing to conclude. If the grocery store wanted to charge me 10 cents per visit for the air I breathe, I would have fundamental issues with that, but I'd still probably pay. And I'm far more motivated by emotion than a publ…

> If the grocery store wanted to charge me 10 cents per visit for the air I breathe, I would have fundamental issues with that, but I'd still probably pay.

Really? You'd just pay it? (maybe negotiate them down to 6 cents like google did then pay it?) I'd probably just stop going to that grocery store (eg like meta no longer serving Canadian media)

Re: Canadian government reaches deal with Google on Online News Act

#202

Post by nitwit005 »

bensecure wrote: post #10
KingLancelot wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Countries are now extorting American tech companies, that’s what’s really going on here.

If you're doing business in a country, naturally you need to deal with the regulatory environment of that country. Its surprising to see such explicit american chauvinism when discussing this issue.

This only applies to specific firms, and no one else. That's hardly typical.

Arguably it violates international agreements Canada has signed, as they essentially agreed to a level playing field for local and international firms.

Re: Canadian government reaches deal with Google on Online News Act

#203

Post by wesapien »

ipaddr wrote: post #162
llm_nerd wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If your interpretation was correct, Meta would not have removed Canadian news sources entirely. Meta's actions prove absolutely nothing. I could similarly say that Google didn't remove any news, therefore the law has zero effect? Meta has, for months in advance of anything coming into force, embargoed Canadian news and replaced it with an appeal to the reader. That is political action, and it seems to have failed gi…

I welcome it for the opposite reason. The few powerful families that control the news cartel in Canada need less reach.

If I had to choose a lesser evil it would be Facebook

Re: Canadian government reaches deal with Google on Online News Act

#204

Post by glerk »

SECProto wrote: post #182
gspencley wrote: post #98

As a Canadian this is disappointing to me. I disagree with the law. Actually, disagree is too soft. I think it is absolutely ridiculous. By Google agreeing to pay even one penny, it removes a large incentive for our politicans and regulations to realize that this was ill-conceived and to come to their senses and repeal.

> As a Canadian this is disappointing to me. I disagree with the law. As a Canadian, this is exciting to me. I agree strongly with the goals of the law (while holding nitpicks about the actual wording). I think the fact that Google came to an agreement shows that they don't have a fundamental issue with the law either (or they could've just withdrawn from our market, like Meta). It's a win for independent media in Ca…

> I agree strongly with the goals of the law

What exactly do you agree with? This is clearly just a shakedown and they're making very little effort to disguise it. Are you a shareholder of the corporations that will benefit from this arrangement?

Re: Canadian government reaches deal with Google on Online News Act

#205

Post by SECProto »

glerk wrote: post #204
SECProto wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a Canadian this is disappointing to me. I disagree with the law. As a Canadian, this is exciting to me. I agree strongly with the goals of the law (while holding nitpicks about the actual wording). I think the fact that Google came to an agreement shows that they don't have a fundamental issue with the law either (or they could've just withdrawn from our market, like Meta). It's a win for independent media in Ca…

> I agree strongly with the goals of the law What exactly do you agree with? This is clearly just a shakedown and they're making very little effort to disguise it. Are you a shareholder of the corporations that will benefit from this arrangement?

I agree with shakedowns of all large multinational corporations, yes. I'm not a shareholder of anything.

Re: Canadian government reaches deal with Google on Online News Act

#206

Post by supriyo-biswas »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #166
kevingadd wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The text of the bill says that links are "news content"? A pure hyperlink does not make content available, since if the target server goes down the link is useless. It just directs the user to the content. Unless somebody loses a court case over hyperlinks, it feels extremely disingenuous to claim this law is going after hyperlinks when Google's content was blatantly more than hyperlinks (they provide excerpts).

The definition of "making available" is actually very broad, presumably to head off at the gate whatever technical work-around Google was planning to use to bypass a the more narrow "the news content, or any portion of it, is reproduced". Like, I can see Google pivoting to providing custom links and a script that runs in the users browser that will dynamically produce the snippets on the pages without the content tec…

Now that you say that, I wonder if this is what SXGs[1] were about.

[1] https://web.dev/articles/signed-exchanges

Re: Canadian government reaches deal with Google on Online News Act

#207

Post by glerk »

SECProto wrote: post #205
glerk wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I agree strongly with the goals of the law What exactly do you agree with? This is clearly just a shakedown and they're making very little effort to disguise it. Are you a shareholder of the corporations that will benefit from this arrangement?

I agree with shakedowns of all large multinational corporations, yes. I'm not a shareholder of anything.

Alright, fair enough. I disagree fundamentally with this way of exerting power, but I respect your honesty.

Re: Canadian government reaches deal with Google on Online News Act

#208

Post by Dylan16807 »

SECProto wrote: post #201
Dylan16807 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the fact that Google came to an agreement shows that they don't have a fundamental issue with the law either (or they could've just withdrawn from our market, like Meta). That's a strange thing to conclude. If the grocery store wanted to charge me 10 cents per visit for the air I breathe, I would have fundamental issues with that, but I'd still probably pay. And I'm far more motivated by emotion than a publ…

> If the grocery store wanted to charge me 10 cents per visit for the air I breathe, I would have fundamental issues with that, but I'd still probably pay. Really? You'd just pay it? (maybe negotiate them down to 6 cents like google did then pay it?) I'd probably just stop going to that grocery store (eg like meta no longer serving Canadian media)

I would call it stupid, and point out that it's just an entrance fee. Like pointing out this is a special tax for specific companies to prop up news organizations.

But I'm willing to pay an entrance fee. It's like Costco but dumber. I wouldn't change stores over such a small number.

Re: Canadian government reaches deal with Google on Online News Act

#209

Post by Dylan16807 »

randomdata wrote: post #197
Dylan16807 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the people trying to visit your website because of very specific interest. You should want their views a lot, not try to keep them out! The access token plan is workable, though still causes annoying linking problems.

> You should want their views a lot, not try to keep them out! Views don't pay the bills. They only want viewers who are willing to pay to play (even if by proxy). C-18 ensures that payment is made, else user access is restricted by legal force. Which is the same outcome if it were done by technical force. They don't care about the restrictions on users who are eschewing payment in either case.

More interested viewers are the ones that might pay money that's actually significant on a per-person basis. I think you have your hierarchy mixed up.

Making them leave and half give up, half come back via a paying search engine or social media site, is not going to be the most effective use of them.

Re: Canadian government reaches deal with Google on Online News Act

#210

Post by SiempreViernes »

gspencley wrote: post #170
SiempreViernes wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of "making available" is actually very broad, presumably to head off at the gate whatever technical work-around Google was planning to use to bypass a the more narrow "the news content, or any portion of it, is reproduced". Like, I can see Google pivoting to providing custom links and a script that runs in the users browser that will dynamically produce the snippets on the pages without the content tec…

A couple things of note: 1. Meta was the other "initial target." And so if we're in a mindset where we just dislike Google or "big powerful corporations that will stop at no end to ... whatever" then the application of the bill ALREADY hit a point where we can start to see how loosely the regulators will interpret Section 6. And according to the wording of that section, they just need to consider the "size" of the en…

Ah, its a good point that the main target is the even more bad faith actor in the form of Facebook! Even more reason the technical criteria has to be broad.

I am however confused why you think the law being applied to the company having 91% of search in Canada is mission creep, you never actually say why claiming that Google has a "a significant bargaining power imbalance" is "loosely" interpreting the criteria....

And sure, the state might have a good chance of winning the court case about Google and Meta trying to avoid the law by not technically delivering the snippets themselves, but it'll take years for sure to go trough the courts. And why would you accept those several years where the damage the law is trying to prevent continues because you wanted the technical definitions to be narrow as when you already had criteria on company size.

Post reply on HN