431–440 of 503 posts
So these news orgs are getting free advertising, and they want to be paid on top?
Facebook and Google cache their content and display it on their own websites, negating the reason for clicking through to the website where the ad dollars would be generated for the content creators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would include HN
The law tries to sort of sidestep this issue by just upfront saying that it only applies if you have a "significant bargaining power imbalance" over the news companies you're displaying. Basically it only applies against you if you're big/important enough. I assume in practice this means Google, Facebook, Twitter, Bing, Apple, and probably some others. Reddit, I suppose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Care to provide verifiable details and a timeline for "look like North Korea and China"? Because otherwise this smells like sensationalism to me. Hate is already defined in Canadian law wrt hate crimes, btw, and that predates the Trudeau-monster by decades.
Many people who would otherwise be appalled at laws like this seem to want to rationalize this because its specifically targeting Google and Meta. Sometimes taking the simple view is correct: It's a bad thing to prevent sites from linking to one another. It's a bad thing to interfere with the ability to access information on the Internet for reasons of nationalist politics.
Many people who would otherwise be appalled at laws like this seem to want to rationalize this because its specifically targeting Google and Meta. Sometimes taking the simple view is correct: It's a bad thing to prevent sites from linking to one another. It's a bad thing to interfere with the ability to access information on the Internet for reasons of nationalist politics.
Governments are there to serve their citizens, not the interests of foreign multinational companies. If this is good for Canadian businesses and the citizens running them and working for them then good for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have seen that in other markets this type of law has hurt not helped publishers. This is Canada but it can easily be any country. We need a fix, big tech has monopolized ad revenue and is choking out the publishers. The quality of newspaper stories has deteriorated over the years and local news has suffered to the point of almost being nonexistent. Also, we now have very few companies that dominate the news. Look…
These News orgs haven’t adapted. They’re sitting around publishing long winded, biased stories on their shitty Wordpress implementation with sketchy ads wondering why they’re failing. I’d happily pay good money for high quality news / journalism presented appropriately for the medium. That means a lot of concise real time information, coupled with long form discussion and debate. All packaged up in a modern, high qua…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always considered linking perfectly fine, but what to me is shady when platforms start to summarize or preview content of the link to the point where that functions as a substitute for the site. There needs to be a distinction between reference to content and the content itself. When platforms start to profit from other people's work without their consent that shouldn't fly. Google search's primary purpose is to…
Snippets are explicitly declared in the metadata of a web page. Those previews only appear because the publisher explicitly asked for them to be used.
The eff had an interesting article[1] about this issue (and others) as well as some alternative ways solve the issue, not that I agree with all of them. Ultimately, this is the wrong approach. The internet should be "open," and people or companies should be free to link to whatever they want without penalty. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/saving-news-big-tech
While I agree with them, it's important to note that the EFF is very pro-big tech and is largely funded by them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This doesn't make sense. Newspapers want links to their stories. Newspapers want monetization. There are three ways linking to stories equal monetization: * Newspapers get enough ad money through these link. This mostly doesn't work. * Newspapers cut their costs and deliver shitty clickbait. * Newspapers get funded by "philantropy". This ranges from newspapers independently funded by trust funds to newspapers being…
Or you know the fourth option - charge people money for access. Crazy I know.
In general, the costs of running a journalistic organization (one which discovers news for itself, not just repackaging news from other media) far outweigh what people are willing to pay for this. Remember that newspapers, even in the times before radio was widespread, were always dirt cheap.
Not to mention, there is a problem of competition. Facts can't be copyrighted, so nothing can stop me from buying a subscription to NYT and reporting everything they write, in my own words, charging much less if I want to. Sure, I don't have their reputation, but if their subscription were high enough to cover their costs alone, plenty of people would chose to trust me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law tries to sort of sidestep this issue by just upfront saying that it only applies if you have a "significant bargaining power imbalance" over the news companies you're displaying. Basically it only applies against you if you're big/important enough. I assume in practice this means Google, Facebook, Twitter, Bing, Apple, and probably some others. Reddit, I suppose.
I have heard it only applies to Google and Facebook at this point in time. I doubt any other companies would be even capable of complying.