Facebook Warns It Could Block News in Canada Over Proposed Legislation (theverge.com) 93
The Verge says Facebook "might ban news sharing in Canada if the country passes legislation forcing the company to pay news outlets for their content." They cite a post Friday from Facebook's parent company Meta, and a recent report in the Wall Street Journal.
If this type of law sounds familiar, it's because Australia introduced a similar one last year, called the News Media Bargaining Code, which also requires Facebook and Google to pay for news included on the platforms. Although Australia eventually passed the law, it wasn't without significant pushback from Facebook and Google. Facebook switched off news sharing in the country in response, and Google threatened to pull its search engine from the country.
While Google later walked back on its plans after striking deals with media organizations, Facebook reversed its news ban only after Australia amended its legislation. Facebook's temporary ban not only affected news outlets but also ripped down posts from government agencies, like local fire and health departments. Earlier this year, a group of Facebook whistleblowers claimed the move was a negotiation tactic, alleging Facebook used an overly broad definition of what's considered a news publisher to cause chaos in the country. The company maintains the disorder was "inadvertent."
Now Facebook's prepared to put a block on news in Canada if the country doesn't change its legislation....
"If this draft legislation becomes law, creating globally unprecedented forms of financial liability for news links or content, we may be forced to consider whether we continue to allow the sharing of news content on Facebook in Canada as defined under the Online News Act," Meta states.
While Google later walked back on its plans after striking deals with media organizations, Facebook reversed its news ban only after Australia amended its legislation. Facebook's temporary ban not only affected news outlets but also ripped down posts from government agencies, like local fire and health departments. Earlier this year, a group of Facebook whistleblowers claimed the move was a negotiation tactic, alleging Facebook used an overly broad definition of what's considered a news publisher to cause chaos in the country. The company maintains the disorder was "inadvertent."
Now Facebook's prepared to put a block on news in Canada if the country doesn't change its legislation....
"If this draft legislation becomes law, creating globally unprecedented forms of financial liability for news links or content, we may be forced to consider whether we continue to allow the sharing of news content on Facebook in Canada as defined under the Online News Act," Meta states.
I think there's only one approperiate response (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: I think there's only one approperiate response (Score:2)
Run an ecologic farm.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like Kids in Cages that was from Obama term? You mean like Pelosi saying you have to vote for the Bill before you can read it? You mean like the Border Patrol whipping migrants that never happened? You mean like the Georgia Jim Crow Voting Rights that lead to record voter turn out? You mean mandating a vaccine for minors when only 1314 minors have died of covid in usa? see cdc stats on cdc.gov You mean the border is under control when a record 2.3 million arrests where made along mexico border? You mean its Putin's fault for inflation and high gas prices? You mean that really wasn't Hunter Bidens laptop?
Great sources you provided. You really changed my mind on things.
I recommend (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook do everyone a favour and block itself entirely.
Re:I recommend (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah I'm missing the downside here.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Less fake news?
Another way for Justine Trudeau to control the press in his country.
You Will Believe What Justine Wants You To Believe
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah I'm missing the downside here.
As a Canadian, I came here to say "it can't happen soon enough". But apparently there is a downside - TFA states "Facebook's temporary ban not only affected news outlets but also ripped down posts from government agencies, like local fire and health departments".
Now I totally agree that any tax-supported agency that relies on "free" services like Facebook as part of what is effectively government infrastructure is at least stupid, and possibly criminally negligent. The bureaucrats get what they deserve in t
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to miss, until you consider this question: How many websites exist in the world?
If you answered 1 (and facebook is The website's name) then it will continue to elude you. So what if the only website in the world (which everyone hates) can't link to other websites anymore?! Who cares?
If you keep thinking about the question, though, and suddenly come up with a total-number-of-websites sum greater than 1, then the downside may leap out at you. You might find yourself asking, "Hey, waitaminute. What
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I'm missing the downside here.
The downside to the news outlets is enormous. They'd love for Facebook to pay them, but they really, really don't want to lose the traffic they get from Facebook.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Facebook switched off news sharing in the country in response, and Google threatened to pull its search engine from the country.
Good. It would really be nice if these governments would grow some backbone and tell these companies to fuck off.
If company makes a gazillion dollars a year but doesn't want to pay for the content that brings in all those gazillions of dollars, then you're better off without them.
Re: (Score:1)
If the links have no value why do they bother? The goodness of Zuck's heart?
Are you asking permission? (Score:2)
May I speak for the people of Canadia? (Score:2)
Australian here, so I almost qualify.
Hey Fecebook. FOAD!
Re: May I speak for the people of Canadia? (Score:2)
You only qualify if you talk about how sorey you are.
Facebook, the Free Ride is over... (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook's soon going to have to find other avenues of creating advertising eyeballs, other than scraping content from actual creators.
This isn't going to be the last of these laws, and I doubt blackmail's going to work for all of them.
Re:Facebook, the Free Ride is over... (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook drives people to the news sites. Heck, I bet tik tok is going to take over the primary place younger people get news from. All the old people on Facebook also still have cable TV and spend way to much time watching the news. Facebook not showing them news links is not going to matter to them.
It really is amusing watching newspaper companies bellyache about their broken business model. Can't they just paywall everything? Technically before the Internet, the Newspaper was in itself the paywall. You were expected to buy the paper before reading it. Otherwise, you turned on your tv and went to the channel you wanted to watch news on.
So screw the news companies. They need to literally get with the times and stop expecting government to make their business model viable.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think folks realize how bitter and angry the kids that live through 2008 really are. I keep seeing various sons of bitches complaining about how the kids aren't very "resilient". What they actually mean whether they know it or not is the kids aren't willing to take
Re: Facebook, the Free Ride is over... (Score:2)
Social media that isn't facebook.
Re: (Score:1)
What of relevance happened in 2008? Seemed pretty unremarkable.
Re: (Score:2)
You're literally parroting each and every talking point that Facebook's been using.
Re: (Score:2)
I NEVER got news from anyone but the media outlets , and I read multiple ones.
THIS is what Meta are threatening
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Blackmail? (Score:2)
Suppose a country was set to impose a tax of $1000 per social media post. If social media sites threatened to pull out from that country, would that be 'blackmail'?
If not, how is it 'blackmail' to threaten withdrawal from Canada because of higher costs?
Is a company never entitled to avoid higher costs imposed by new legislation?
While you're at it (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook, can you please block news in the US too???
Re: While you're at it (Score:2)
To be effective they need to block news in private posts too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, please!
Re: While you're at it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the hot chicks are news, are they not? If you don't know who they are now, learning who they are should count as news...
And nothing of value was lost... (Score:3, Insightful)
And nothing of value was lost. Canada has the CBC, which is one of the most impartial, well run news sources out there.
Please, while you are at it, block access in the US, Canada, Mexico, the EU, and other nations? We would all be very grateful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they'll lie like they did in .au (Score:4, Interesting)
Facebook tried this in Australia. Nobody would have cared, but facebook made sure that a lot of community news and local government information got blocked too. So there was enough pressure from people who lost updates from their local craft circle or sporting team that there was some backlash.
The real problem here is that facebook claimed it was an accident. This global tech behemoth somehow couldn't block the dozen or so "news" sites that make up the Australian media cartel without nuking a bunch of kids' soccer teams?
I'll dig out some links when i'm not posting from a shitty mobile device ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: they'll lie like they did in .au (Score:4, Insightful)
It probably was deliberate, but it's at least plausible that it was accidental because there really is no universal way to distinguish between news and blogs. Even if you make a genuine effort to do that, you're bound to fuck it up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It probably was deliberate, but it's at least plausible that it was accidental because there really is no universal way to distinguish between news and blogs. Even if you make a genuine effort to do that, you're bound to fuck it up.
No, the media landscape here is pretty barren. A manually-curated blocklist of a few hundred domains could have done the job. Surely, with all their billions of dollars, facebook could have paid a guy for an afternoon to put together such a list. The only explanation for the approach they did take, is malicious deception.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would they when we all know the law was created for the single purpose of funneling money to Murdoch's shitty media empire?
Overkill and hyperbole to rile the up public against crooked politicians sometimes work, I wouldn't call that malicious deception when it was entirely in response to Murdoch's pet politicians doing his bidding.
Just because Facebook are doing shitty things, using that as an excuse to make up extremely shitty laws to benefit another media company is even shittier - because if we allow
Re: (Score:3)
It probably was deliberate, but it's at least plausible that it was accidental because there really is no universal way to distinguish between news and blogs.
There's not that much available in Australia. They only sought to block Australian based news empires and you can for the most part count that entire list on your fingers.
Re:they'll lie like they did in .au (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is government using Facebook for communications instead of government websites? That's the real question at hand.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is government using Facebook for communications instead of government websites? That's the real question at hand.
I agree. During covid lockdowns, my local govt would release their daily press briefing via Facebook. No, you didn't need a facebook account to watch the briefings, but why the govt didn't put it on their *own* website still baffles me.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook pages are cheaper and easier to maintain than standard websites.
Re: (Score:2)
We pay taxes for a reason. Not so government can use a "free" service from a private company. Seriously, I expect the government to use communications platforms they control. Allow others to repost. We call that the news but stuff should originate from the government itself. Even if it's just the spokesman talking to a room of reporters. Those reporters had to show up to hear the message.
Besides, many (or almost all?) government agencies already run websites anyway. Not hard to add an announcement section.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused (Score:2, Insightful)
Hate to defend Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
But they are private company that no one needs to use for anything. It's purely optional and competition to everything they do exist from other vendors.
I 100% agree with the Australia tactics, especially the government announcements. Fucking government (ANY GOVERNMENT) announcements should appear on a federally owned and operated website ending in .gov . Private companies can repost this information on their platforms if they want.
As far as the news ban goes. Well, you get what you ask for. Pay us or stop using our content. Fine, I'll stop using your content. Oh, you lost even more business, that sure does suck. Shouldn't of forced me to ban you from my platform, a private platform that doesn't get government money. That's more then a lot of companies can say.
P.S. If you hate Facebook, then don't use it. I can't even get into my account because it's been over a decade. Nearly nothing of value was lost.
it's always going to be a racket at some level (Score:2)
And each government has to pay VeriSign for that certificate of each *.gov.au or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the Internet isn't owned by the government. It's owned by a bunch of private companies that own all the lines and operate the network. Government doesn't get a pass. They got to pay. Just like everyone else. Luckily for government it has taxpayer cash or can just print more when they feel like it.
Re: (Score:1)
Nonsense.
The last mile is impossible to install without using public land or public right off ways through -private- land.
When FB buys the rights to install last mile, we can talk about their human rights as a fucking mega corporation.
I am so sickened by people talking about mega corporations' human rights to use my tax dollars to increase their profit or support their otherwise broken business model.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the concept of socializing losses and privatizing gains is going to go away. It's just so ... lucrative. At least not without some national cultural awakening willing to reexamine our economic system.
Re:Hate to defend Facebook (Score:4, Informative)
First: News costs money. Real news requires real journalists who dig deep and find what's being hidden from the public. It requires money and legal support and travel costs and sometimes bodyguards for reporters who step on powerful toes. I confess that I get my news from news feeds at the source that are ad free. I'm a freeloader but I do go to the source when I want the full story. But so are others who get their news from commercial sites like Slashdot that include 1,000 words in a 'summary' without any payment to the authors. (And Slashdot knows from long experience that most readers WON'T RTFA.)
Second: Some news sites are monopolistic and have a strong influence on government. I won't mention Rupert Murdoch who has such power in Australia and the US with Fox news. News from this source has often questionable content and shouldn't be repeated by any reliable source. They are the largest beneficiary of these laws, and they initiated them. Many observers believe they should rot in hell.
Third, and summary: Legitimate news sources need support. Sure, quote their headlines and a bit more to send readers to the source, but don't dump large excerpts of their coverage on some outside site without payment.
Re: (Score:2)
I 100% agree with the Australia tactics, especially the government announcements
The Australia tactics weren't something to cheer. The rules were for Facebook to stop scaping news content and feeding it through the new channel themselves.
Instead Facebook actually prevented news companies from sharing content they wanted on their own feed under their own volition. The block of government announcements was also dangerous. The government didn't force Facebook to share its updates with anyone. They simply had an account where they posted updates and got blocked, including may I add, actual
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying it wasn't petty but so is the News media for trying to get laws to fix a deprecated business model. If they are producing enough news people want to read they can paywall up and survive just fine. There are MANY places to go pay for news and just as many that don't. BBC.com is a pretty decent news source and is free to everyone thanks to I think the UK taxpayers. They've decided the cost is worth the overall benefit to the society in general.
Facebook doesn't need to explain why it bans you fr
I don't get it. (Score:1)
I don't understand why news sites would expect to get money from Facebook. Don't they have their own advertisers? If anything, Facebook should charge them for sending them clicks.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is that sites like Facebook host comprehensive summaries of articles without driving enough traffic to the actual source of the story. That way the news source gets no ad revenue.
Can we skip the middle part? (Score:3)
Can we skip the part where Meta slowly fails and get to the part where it takes Facebook down with it?
Re: Can we skip the middle part? (Score:2)
No.
Australia (Score:3)
Whatever happened to them anyway? They used to pop up in the news from time to time a few years back. But they seem to have vanished from the face of the Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't exist.
Re: (Score:3)
COVID happened. Because COVID spreads via 5G and is digital as part of the border control rules Australia disconnected itself from the internet.
Oh, no! (Score:1)
Good (Score:1)
Good, and good riddance (Score:3)
Facebook and all other social media platforms that use AI to improve "engagement" need to die. They're a blight on humanity and a major impetus for the political dysfunction a lot of Western democracies find themselves in.
Re: (Score:2)
I use FB Purity. (I have to be on Facebook even though I hate it; it's where comedy gigs tend to get booked.) FB Purity makes it much more bearable. Highly recommended!
When a sh!tty law has a good unintended outcome (Score:2)
Well, really, I think it depends how the law is implemented whether it's shitty. Simple pay-to-link is inherently stupid and is a footgun that will guarantee less traffic by banning free word-of-mouth promotion. But if linking is free but reproducing the headline, snippet and picture is what they have to pay for, that's all most people read and therefore takes away the pageview from the news site. It's also reproducing copyrighted material without permission.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the text of the bill...
(2)For the purposes of this Act, news content is made available if
(a)the news content, or any portion of it, is reproduced; or
(b)access to the news content, or any portion of it, is facilitated by any means, including an index, aggregation or ranking of news content.
I'm pretty sure a link qualifies.
Please, Facebook (Score:2)
Do it worldwide.
Good (Score:2)
"Facebook's temporary ban not only affected news outlets but also ripped down posts from government agencies,"
Well, I guess that's will teach them to not touch Faceshit with a ten feet long pole. Hopefully.
There is News on Facebook? (Score:2)
Let's Hope (Score:2)
Gift horse, meet Mouth (Score:2)
As a Canadian. (Score:2)