• Orcocracy [comrade/them]
    ·
    1 year ago

    I really don't understand the people who (on an open source social media platform of all places!) rush to defend Meta/Facebook on bill C-18. Any action taken against Facebook's power in society, no matter how flawed, is inherently good.

    • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
      ·
      1 year ago

      I really don’t understand the people who rush to defend Meta/Facebook on bill C-18.

      Because it is what is most likely to provoke a reaction? Like all internet comments, the words aren't grounded in anything. They are crafted such that they attempt to get something back in return (a reply, a vote, etc.) If you want to learn what people really think, you need to find a way into their private journal (without them knowing, else you will influence the activity). As soon as other people become involved, the motivations change.

      (on an open source social media platform of all places!)

      Well, if Lemmy ever becomes popular, it too will become subject to the same law. Open source especially doesn't like such encumberments. This surprises you, why?

      • Orcocracy [comrade/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No it wouldn't become subject to the same law. A new and different law would be required. But that's wildly hypothetical, given the differences between an open distributed system and a massive private corporation.

        Also, human behaviour and social interactions are seldom quite so transactional.

        • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Bill C-18 clearly includes Lemmy in theory, only excluding it by virtue of it not being considered dominant. That could change some day should it ever become popular.

          As much as humans don't like to admit it, human behaviour is always perfectly transactional.

          • Orcocracy [comrade/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            Please take this as friendly advice: you appear to be describing a dangerous view of social relationships and this could get you in some potentially very serious trouble with the people around you. Please, do not treat your relationships with other people as transactional.

            • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If someone is going to cause trouble because of some words someone said, they are mentally unwell and it is best to get that out in the open so they can receive the help they need.

              Everything is transactional. Even trying to not be transactional towards another because it makes you feel good that you are not being transactional is actually transactional. Those good feelings the other person gave you are payment for your efforts.

              • Orcocracy [comrade/them]
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yes, you might want to speak to a psychologist or psychotherapist before you do something that you may later come to regret.

                • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  What's the risk? I get murdered by a madman because I uttered some insignificant words they weren't able to process appropriately? If that's the risk, I should be talking the police, not a psychologist or psychotherapist.

                  • Orcocracy [comrade/them]
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I'm trying to be delicate, but the misguided rhetoric you are advocating is commonly used to justify violent, psychopathic, and misogynistic behaviour. You need to stop thinking of human social relationships as transactional. They are not. You could really hurt someone if this is genuinely what you believe.

                    • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
                      ·
                      edit-2
                      1 year ago

                      but the misguided rhetoric you are advocating is commonly used to justify violent, psychopathic, and misogynistic behaviour.

                      I am afraid that doesn't stand up to reason.

                      I accept that the mentally unwell can twist anything into justifying whatever anti-social act they please, but that is well beyond any relevance that exists with respect to the conversation here. Besides, their claimed justification isn't the real reason for the act anyway.

                      That said, at second glance, are trying to say that it is you are the one who is about to irrationally burst out in a fit of rage because you think you cannot appropriately process a set of words? I'll be happy to point the police in your direction if that is your concern. They can help protect whomever it is your think you are going to hurt.

                      You need to stop thinking of human social relationships as transactional.

                      Frankly, telling someone that they need stop thinking about something is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Funny, yes, but best to leave the comedy for the comedy club.

                      They are not.

                      Of course, they are. It is well understood that the brain operates on a reward system.

                      You could really hurt someone if this is genuinely what you believe.

                      Well, no, technically it would be you who ends up hurting someone if the above is what is going on. If that doesn't describe you, nobody will be hurt. There is nothing here that can cause hurt.

  • Szymon@lemmy.ca
    ·
    1 year ago

    Meta leaving Canada entirely would be a win in my books as we see the influence of weaponized stupidity crossing the border.

  • ryper@lemmy.ca
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    "Meta's practices are clearly designed to discipline Canadian news companies, prevent them from participating in and accessing the advertising market, and significantly reduce their visibility to Canadians on social media channels," the CBC said in a joint statement with the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and News Media Canada, a trade organization that represents newspapers.

    Isn't the argument for C-18 that the advertising market isn't doing the news organizations much good anyway?

    And as far as their visibility on social media channels, the news organization created this problem for themselves in the first place by encouraging people to share their work on social media; if they'd focused on making sure people know where to find them instead of posting all their work maybe their sites would be getting more traffic. They tried a business strategy, it didn't work out, and now instead of coming up with a better strategy they're trying to force Meta and Google to give them money and make the bad strategy work.

    Canadians expect tech giants to follow the law in our country.

    The law says Meta and Google have to pay to carry news; it doesn't say they have to carry news. Maybe the law should have been written without that gaping hole?

    • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Isn’t the argument for C-18 that the advertising market isn’t doing the news organizations much good anyway?

      The officially stated reason for Bill C-18 is to give news organizations in Canada balanced negotiating power with entities like Facebook.

      Which, I guess, was successful. Facebook pushed away from the bargaining table as it no longer feels like it holds dominance over it.

      But now the news companies are saying that's not good enough. They want more power than Facebook has.

    • festus@lemmy.ca
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it's worth noting that news organizations are struggling not because less people are reading news but rather because advertising is so cheap now. When newspapers were the only advertising source they could charge high prices. Then TV came out which hurt them, but this was balanced by TV spending some money on journalism. Now with the internet the prices newspapers can charge for advertising is sooo much less than they could previously.

      Anyway, I think it's worth noting this because there's this narrative that news organizations helped build up social media (and maybe deserve a cut). I mean really, how many people decided to make an Instagram account or Facebook account because CBC happened to have a page they could follow? Of the people I know who use Facebook or Instagram, none use it for news. This also means that utilizing social media to drive traffic may still be a good strategy - if the government hadn't effectively blocked that.

  • pelotron@midwest.social
    ·
    1 year ago

    Lol, what do they expect to be done about this? Is the government supposed to force Facebook to show their content, yet also pay to do it? I hate Facebook but I'm so glad they're doing this because link taxes are fucking stupid.

    • 312@lemm.ee
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I am not Canadian so I’m sure there’s some information/nuance I don’t understand here, but from what I can tell from looking at a few articles from different sources:

      • Canadian government passes a law that would require Facebook to pay and/or share ad revenue for every link out (posted by the media outlet, not by Facebook) to an external news website

      • Facebook says they don’t want to do that, and will stop showing news links to comply with the law

      • Canadian government says “no not like that” and now wants to force them to allow links to news outlets, which de facto forces them to pay/share revenue with those media outlets

      Like I said, I’m assuming there may be something I’m missing here, so please any kind Canadians who can help fill in the blanks would be appreciated

  • Sloogs@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Lol not a fan of Facebook or Meta but forcing any entity to provide a service they don't want to provide especially if it's not being done in a discriminatory way seems dubious. Legacy media are reaping what hath been sown.

  • Ulrich_the_Old@lemmy.ca
    ·
    1 year ago

    The news existed before facebook and will continue to exist after facebook. Just go to the news sites and read your news. I quit both facebook and twitter over 6 years ago but I have never quit reading the news.... facebook and twitter are not the news.... Also their support of nazis and fascists should preclude them from even being allowed in Canada.

  • ikidd@lemmy.ca
    ·
    1 year ago

    Man, I hate Meta with a passion, but it's hilarious watching the slow motion train wreck this amateur-hour legislation has become.

  • Tired8281@lemmy.ca
    ·
    1 year ago

    Isn't this a little bit like a shit flavoured candy maker, suing Walmart to force them to sell their shit flavoured candy? What grounds do they have to force Facebook to have anything to do with them?

    • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not really a good analogy because Walmart mostly purchases goods to resell them1, while Facebook does not purchase news. Even so, if Walmart suddenly stopped selling Canadian goods it could lead to a lawsuit too. CBC is not trying to force Facebook to accept CBC links, it's about all Canadian outlets.

      1 well, except on their 3rd party marketplace, but we all know this is not what the analogy is talking about

    • Powerpoint@lemmy.ca
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Meta did that. Meta needs to be investigated. This is good news. Their support of platforming fascists should automatically cause them to not be allowed in Canada.

  • lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca
    ·
    1 year ago

    I dont want news on facebook. I signed up for facebook to keep up with friends, not corporations.

  • dingleberry@discuss.tchncs.de
    ·
    1 year ago

    It's a lose lose battle for News companies. You asked for it buddy. I'd feel sorry for you if you weren't pushing some low-tier garbage "journalism" and propaganda for decades.