Canada demands Meta lift news ban to allow wildfire info sharing

Post by JimtheCoder » Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 2:25 PM UTC

JKCalhoun wrote: post #59

hotstickyballs wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet the government extorts all similar public spaces

There's a bizarre trend I have seen in the past decades where "The Government" is being portrayed as the enemy — not as the construct we have created to represent the wishes and needs of the people and society. Corporations are portrayed as our saviors at best — or at worst, excused for doing whatever they need to to make their shareholders a return on their investments.

Post by JKCalhoun » Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 2:26 PM UTC

andsoitis wrote: post #61

JKCalhoun wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What makes it arbitrary is that "a public safety exemption" isn't specified or codified in the language of the anticipated regulation. Even it if were, there's also another practical wrinkle with using the concept of "public safety" when it comes to "news". Would the definition, for example, include "fake news"? A company can also decide that it is too risky to automatically detect whether a news article complies wit…

Post by JKCalhoun » Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 2:29 PM UTC

JimtheCoder wrote: post #71

JKCalhoun wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a bizarre trend I have seen in the past decades where "The Government" is being portrayed as the enemy — not as the construct we have created to represent the wishes and needs of the people and society. Corporations are portrayed as our saviors at best — or at worst, excused for doing whatever they need to to make their shareholders a return on their investments.

"not as the construct we have created to represent the wishes and needs of the people and society." Does the government actually do that?

Post by dbingham » Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 2:35 PM UTC

twoodfin wrote: post #72

dbingham wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that companies that successfully become monopolies like this - especially over critical public functions like communication - shouldn't be allowed to be private. At that point, they've made themselves utilities. But the free marketeers have such a grip on public policy here in North America that the governments aren't able to take the appropriate regulatory action: Either nationalize them and make them…

Sorry, but the idea that Facebook, or even Meta generally, has a monopoly on communication is absurd on its face.

Post by kennywinker » Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 2:37 PM UTC

jsnell wrote: post #54

kennywinker wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok so to make your postal service analogy accurate let’s add a detail: whenever you send a newspaper clipping the postal service opens the letter and inserts a piece of junkmail. Ok now imagine the gov passes a law saying “if you insert junkmail into a letter containing a newspaper clipping, you have to pay a fee to the newspaper”. Where’s the problem? Either they stop inserting ads, or they pay. As for “make less mo…

> Where’s the problem? Either they stop inserting ads, or they pay. Well, one pretty big problem is that nothing analogous to "stop inserting" ads is an option provided by the law as passed in reality. You've made it up to make the law sound better than it is. That you had to resort to such fibbing seems like a pretty good indicator on how flawed the bill is.