Meta To End News Access For Canadians if Online News Act Becomes Law (reuters.com) 53
Facebook-parent Meta Platforms said on Saturday that it would end availability of news content for Canadians on its platforms if the country's Online News Act passes in its current form. From a report: The "Online News Act," or House of Commons bill C-18, introduced in April last year laid out rules to force platforms like Meta and Alphabet's Google to negotiate commercial deals and pay news publishers for their content. "A legislative framework that compels us to pay for links or content that we do not post, and which are not the reason the vast majority of people use our platforms, is neither sustainable nor workable," a Meta spokesperson said as reason to suspend news access in the country. Meta's move comes after Google last month started testing limited news censorship as a potential response to the bill. Canada's news media industry has asked the government for more regulation of tech companies to allow the industry to recoup financial losses it has suffered in the years as tech giants like Google and Meta steadily gain greater market share of advertising. We've watched this movie before.
Seriously? (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be happy if they canceled news access from the US as well.
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be happy if they canceled news access from the US as well.
Yep and have it filed under: "... and nothing of value was lost."
Re: (Score:3)
If the news orgs dont want their content out there, use a paywall.
Re: (Score:2)
Contracts are like signing up for trial by battle: they chap with the biggest wallet gets the biggest sword (;-))
I like law, notably the Criminal Code. It's backed up with police, not money.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, and the problem with contracts as a replacement to law is that if you dont have money, you get deprived of whatever protection the law is providing.
Re: (Score:2)
If they want a law they'll get one. It probably won't help them though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As a US citizen, blocking Tik-Tok, Meta, and US news, there is a phrase for that:
"And nothing of value was lost."
The CBC is far better of a news source than anything south of the border.
Re: (Score:1)
Who gets there news from facebook
This bill isn't about where people get their news. It isn't about news at all, the bill targets all online communications platforms.
It is specifically to redirect money from tech to news outlets due to advertising income earned over the Internet.
The bill also demands Amazon pay Canadian news publishers because they own Twitch.TV
There isn't even a twisted claim that Twitch is a source of news, it's only because of the online ad revenue Twitch pulls in as an "online communication platform"
Online news is only
Re: (Score:2)
On my Facebook feed the 'news' I get is usually an unsolicited post thrown into my feed about a movie reboot where a character's skin tone has changed from the 'classic' and 10k comments about how unacceptable that is for hastily-developed reasons. I'm pretty sure these posts are brought up simply because replies, 'likes', and moderation are all part of their advertising tricks of the trade. News about the US and Australia trading nuclear submarines, for example, hasn't made it to my feed.
At least this is
Re: (Score:2)
I saw Picard say "Engage" in the last episode, so it seems he has a different opinion that you on engagement! ;)
Re: Seriously? (Score:3, Interesting)
I know far too many young adults who get all their news from social media. Not necessarily Facebook but, either way, good riddance. I'm looking forward to the improvement!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think social media is such a bad way to get news, compared to the alternatives.
I'm sure you read several news websites every day, a mixture of political leanings, in order to get a fair and balanced overview of current events. Most people just read one one shitty newspaper or website and call it a day.
News aggregator sites just post a bunch of clickbait headlines, and track which ones you click on to build you a personal news bubble.
At least with social media some of their friends might have differe
Re: (Score:2)
As a Canadian I wish we could just leave well enough alone, but I do agree with you. I use Facebook minimally to keep in touch with close friends/family. It is only useful with FB Purity (and even then, barely) .. but I don't get any news on Facebook what-so-ever. So apart from an abstract political discussion about the merits of the law and whether this is what I want my tax dollars going towards, the whole thing seems kind of moot if I'm being honest.
"Availability of news content for Canadians" (Score:4, Funny)
Don't threaten Canadians with a good time!
Re: (Score:2)
Hell must have frozen over. I'm siding with Facebook on political matters.
Good! (Score:5, Informative)
Good news everyone!
Re: (Score:2)
Good news everyone!
This is how you treat me, after all the 'good news!' I've given you over the years?
While I'm not Canadian (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't throw Canada in the briar patch, Mr. Zuckerberg. Definitely not in the briar patch.
I gotta say (Score:2)
This might convince me to emigrate up there!
Oh no! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm Canadian, and that's terrible. I mean, we didn't have access to news before Facebook, and there are no other sources if they walk away. We'll be news-less like we were in the dark days. Unless, of course, we all suddenly find out that it's a sham, and Facebook is unnecessary...
I'm reminded of Saudi Arabia trying to kill the fracking industry. Turns out they forced their opposition to become more competent and more formidable.
Re: Oh no! (Score:1)
When the snow melts I might get some travelers from down south!
Australia (Score:3)
Didn't they try to pull the same stunt in Australia and then rapidly backpedal when they got their bluff called over it?
Re: Australia (Score:1)
In Australia we now have a situation with second-tier "news" organisations putting out trivial click-bait stories in an effort to attract more attention and revenue via facebook. I'm sure there will be an uptick in (other irrelevant and unwated) sponsored content to foot that bill. But the stated objective of fairly compensating genuine journalism is looking like a failure, already.
Re: (Score:2)
The Australian government claims that it was a success, and Google is now paying the news sites as intended by the law [reuters.com]. Here's another article claiming the same [aljazeera.com]. I'd like to get more details though, because I don't understand why Google would do that. But I don't understand how Google makes money from news.google.com since it seems to be ad-free. I don't get it.
Hmm (Score:3)
This is like the Euro ISPs. They want to double dip.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook ignores robots.txt in doing so, btw..
A trivial search didn't find this information for me. Got a link?
Note: that same search said, "Google will still index the page, it just won't read the contents." If you have a link showing that google will scrape that data regardless of the robots.txt file, I'd appreciate that too.
Hmm... did they have "robots.txt" on said page? If not, is it relevant to the robots.txt discussion?
Re: (Score:2)
Got a link?
Got a server with a web site and can read log files. As for the rest, your reading comprehension seems to be on par with that of a large language model.
Which is it? (Score:3)
Is this about purely linking to new articles, or is it scraping the news article and redisplaying it within their app or site?
If it's linking, then I fall on the side of "It gets you more traffic on your news site, dummies"
But if it's scraping (Like they do in "Microsoft Start" news), then it steals impressions from the news sites entirely, and that should certainly be paid for by the scrapers.
Re: (Score:2)
They scrape just enough to not get sued, and it's very effective at getting people to stay on FB and not go to the news sites. Pictures are particularly effective: they seem to be able to quote one entire picture for almost any article.
My usual newspaper, the Globe and Mail, made a deal and gives FB nicely formatted pictures and headnotes. That does seem to draw some customers.
Please please please... (Score:2)
Please US politicians, for once take a page from Canada's book and propose that Facebook pay for news they use, anything for them to pull up stakes and forbid the use of Facebook in the US...
We gotta get rid of this cancer one way or another, and if they will do it themselves, then please give them the out to do so...
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Right now, I seem to get the worst of all worlds. An interesting article... and its behind a paywall with some no-name news org I've never heard of, and they want their own account and require a phone call or first born to cancel.
Best thing to do is probably never bother with that link and see about Reuters, the CBC, The Register or other First World news source.
Re: (Score:2)
First Amendment issues aside, would you prefer all those Facebook users migrate to Twitter instead?
Special deal ... (Score:2)
The "Online News Act," or House of Commons bill C-18, introduced in April last year laid out rules to force platforms like Meta and Alphabet's Google to negotiate commercial deals and pay news publishers for their content.
So they want to be exempt from having to: "negotiate commercial deals and pay news publishers for their content"? Does this mean we can now cite this as a precedent for not having to pay Disney, Netflix, Hulu et. al. for using their content to generate advertising revenue that we pocket ourselves? ... naw, didn't think so, but it's a nice deal if you can get it.
I think if our politicians weren't so dependent (Score:1)
I think if our politicians weren't so dependent on facebook for their news we may be able to replicate the Canadian move here in New Zealand.
Ignore this being about Meta and it's a good thing (Score:2)
Everybody gets caught on this involving Meta (because everybody hates Meta) and forgets that the basic thing being discussed here is a bill forcing companies to pay for *links* to content, links that their *users* posted. Replace "Meta" with "Slashdot" or whatever non-controversial website you want and this should come across as an insane government overreach.
For that matter, why should anybody pay for links, regardless of who posted them? If a website can't monetize their content once users are on their we
This reminds me of WhatsApp in the UK (Score:2)
No links here - it is late at night - but WhatsApp were threatening to pull out of the UK if certain legislation is passed. The difference is that the legislation in question is not about money, it's about forbidding encryption and WhatsApp have said they are not going to go along with that.
The news item was some time last week, hell - it may even have been here.
Re: (Score:2)
And Meta can simply ignore it ... Whatsapp is free so they don't need an office in the UK....
You guys still remember the FB/Google "threats"? (Score:2)
- I said FB is a company, it's not their place to "threaten" governments
- FB cut a deal with Australia after their legislation passed
If FB wants to screw with EU, the union can actually screw an entire light bulb right up Mr. Z's ass. So I'm gonna predict next: Canada is gonna pass their laws and FB is still gonna have to bend over.
Oh noes! (Score:2)
Yawn, they pulled that threat in Au and then caved (Score:1)
Same shit, another day. We had news pulled for a few days then they caved. Our politicians to my surprise couldn't be cowed. So go go go to our Canadian Commonwealth cousins
Re: (Score:2)
A Blessing! (Score:1)
As a Canadian, I'd love not to have what Facebook considers 'News' (i.e. propaganda and misinformation) from being jammed down my throat.
Wait.... (Score:2)
Wait a sec. If Facebook stops showing canadian news in my feed, that means less garbage will show up in my feed, and more stuff from friends and family will.
I don't see the problem here.
Good (Score:1)