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

Canada demands Meta lift news ban to allow wildfire info sharing

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 98 posts

Re: Canada demands Meta lift news ban to allow wildfire info sharing

#41

Post by JKCalhoun »

1over137 wrote: post #24
surgicalcolor wrote: post #2

People are resorting to sharing wildfire news info with screenshots because of the ban.

Their facebook addiction is strong then. As they are not 'resorting' to using a means of communication other than facebook.

Interesting. It makes me wonder what a government service that is comprised of public message boards would look like. Like NextDoor with city/county/state/federal tiers.

It's easy to shoot that idea down, harder though to suggest an alternative that solves the problem of creating a public space not controlled by corporate/monied interests.

Re: Canada demands Meta lift news ban to allow wildfire info sharing

#42

Post by thepasswordis »

JimtheCoder wrote: post #29

Why doesn't the gov just use the Amber alert system to share essential info? Why do people even need to read articles on a forest fire. It's a...large fire. In the forest.

Because sometimes the fire exits the forest and enters peoples homes.

Re: Canada demands Meta lift news ban to allow wildfire info sharing

#44

Post by ksaj »

andsoitis wrote: post #28
ksaj wrote: post #19

Amazing what greed can do. They want to make money from the news, yet they don't want to pay the news sources for letting them feed off of it. If a Canadian outfit wanted to host news and other media from the US, you know it wouldn't happen without payments in kind to the American news or media outlet.

I'll assume you're writing in good faith, so I will try to explain why I think some are disagreeing with you. > Amazing what greed can do. They want to make money from the news, yet they don't want to pay the news sources for letting them feed off of it. The Canadian government has said that a law is going to come into effect that will ban a company like Facebook from allowing news links unless the news provider is c…

I suppose the sites (except for CBC) could paywall. That would be the only recourse. And would actually solve the issue at hand in a lot cleaner and familiar way.

The law change has both its support and detractors here, so wholesale downvoting without even commenting is counter to any real discussion. So I do appreciate your input for sure. I agree with your statement on Meta complying with what they were told to do, and not wanting to entertain an about-face when shortcomings in the law (before it is even passed!) show up.

We also have Canadian Content Laws here that have an impact on how Canadian media is handled within our own borders. I would expect people who don't like that law to also not like this one - they both complicate things more than they were presumably meant to.

Re: Canada demands Meta lift news ban to allow wildfire info sharing

#46

Post by three3 »

kennywinker wrote: post #31
catchnear4321 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if information about disasters is “content,” then the correct answer is “everyone.”

It costs money to gather information, send reporters + photographers places, etc. rent seeking is wanting to be paid for no new work, not wanting to be paid for work that is in the public interest.

Well, Facebook already blocked sharing news, so... Where's the rent seeking?

Re: Canada demands Meta lift news ban to allow wildfire info sharing

#47

Post by JKCalhoun »

andsoitis wrote: post #28
ksaj wrote: post #19

Amazing what greed can do. They want to make money from the news, yet they don't want to pay the news sources for letting them feed off of it. If a Canadian outfit wanted to host news and other media from the US, you know it wouldn't happen without payments in kind to the American news or media outlet.

I'll assume you're writing in good faith, so I will try to explain why I think some are disagreeing with you. > Amazing what greed can do. They want to make money from the news, yet they don't want to pay the news sources for letting them feed off of it. The Canadian government has said that a law is going to come into effect that will ban a company like Facebook from allowing news links unless the news provider is c…

> arbitrary exemption

Public safety? As soon as you codify it into the law it is no longer arbitrary. Maybe arbitrarily enforced (down the road) but that is a different battle.

Re: Canada demands Meta lift news ban to allow wildfire info sharing

#48

Post by phyrex »

benj111 wrote: post #22

What actually is the law? Is it just embedding an article? Hyperlinks? What? They can't be doing it with hyperlinks surely, or else that would break the web. Edit: it does apparently include links. But links go the newspapers website, who presumably can monetise how they like, so why would that be an issue?!?

They very much didn’t want to ban it, they ALSO wanted to get paid for the social media links too. It just backfired on them.

Re: Canada demands Meta lift news ban to allow wildfire info sharing

#49

Post by JimtheCoder »

thepasswordis wrote: post #42
JimtheCoder wrote: post #29

Why doesn't the gov just use the Amber alert system to share essential info? Why do people even need to read articles on a forest fire. It's a...large fire. In the forest.

Because sometimes the fire exits the forest and enters peoples homes.

And that is why the gov should be using official government channels or Amber alert type systems to disseminate essential information.

If a fire is getting close to my home, I want to learn this information from the appropriate authorities, including what actions need to be taken. Not from some journalist.

Re: Canada demands Meta lift news ban to allow wildfire info sharing

#50

Post by hotstickyballs »

kennywinker wrote: post #14
entuno wrote: post #3

Has the Canadian government exempted articles about the wildfires from fees? If not, they don't really have any right to complain that Facebook doesn't want to pay to share them. At the end of the day, they're a private company who are looking to make a profit, not an emergency broadcast system.

As i understand it, the law that would require them to pay has not come into effect yet

The law exempting them from paying fees hasn’t even been drafted yet
Post reply on HN