The entire city of #Yellowknife is being evacuated. This is unprecedented and terrifying.
And thousands of citizens aren’t aware because Meta continues to block news in the country.
This is what happens when citizens are convinced to use an American multinational corporation as their community’s primary communications channel — a corporation that couldn’t give two shits about anything except its “fiduciary duty” to shareholders.
@tod
climate change / global warming is not 🚫
a "Chinese hoax" 🔥
this is REAL
It's happening in our lifetime
This will require dramatic action to
save the blue planet 🌎🌏🌍 #ClimateJusticeNow@Rasta
@tod#Meta absolutely wants anyone in #YellowKnife who relies on #Facebook or #Instagram for news to burn to death. If they didn't stop the #Rohingya#Genocide actively organized on their platforms, why would they help the average Canadian citizen?
So Facebook and Google had a choice: they could continue to do this, and pay for the privilege, or they could stop linking to it. There was no third option.
We forced the choice on them; blame our #politicians.
Thanks for repeating the Facebook corporate line. Very original.
Facebook, Google, et al soak up all the ad revenue so that the news corporations, the ones with actual reporters, are struggling. They had the choice to contribute for the reportage they skim, or not. They chose not.
I think the Canadian government hasn't gone far enough. Next step, declare them publishers. Make them legally liable for every bit of slander, libel, and defamation they carry on their sites.
I'm not a Facebook shill; I detest Facebook and always have; I have never had an account. I would be perfectly happy to drop Zuckerberg into whichever of Hawaii's volcanoes is closest to his private estate.
I'm also not defending Google - I don't use their services and don't have an account there, either.
If Canada wishes to pay for a national emergency info distribution system, I'm sure FB or anyone else would be happy to build and run it...for reasonable fees.
Expecting someone else to do it for free isn't a plan.
@KilKerrin@Yup_Its_Holly Not quite. Facebook shut down news in the country before the law took place. This sent legislators into a scramble to put last minute changes into the law. These changes allowed social media to come up with their own private deals with the media companies. As long as they had such a deal on record, the law didn't apply.
So, are they paying something? Yeah, probably. But "did they agree to pay it"? Not so much.
@Sir_Osis_of_Liver@cazabon@tod That's not how the law worked. They were saying that if any Facebook user posts a link to a news story, Facebook is liable and has to pay. It is a link tax, the only way to avoid it is to disallow links. What the government should have done instead would be a digital advertising tax. Tax Facebook and Google (and maybe others) for a portion of their ad revenue in Canada. They could then use that money to subsidize journalism, or for any other purpose. That way FB can't escape the tax without leaving Canada altogether, and we don't have the noxious idea that a link is taxable.
Hear, hear. Exactly; it's a link tax. And financially, it makes no sense to pretty much anyone, so the companies choosing not to pay to link was both predictable, and in fact predicted by many, many people - pretty much everyone except members of the Canadian #dinosaur#media, #politicians, and anti-capitalism #zealots.
@Sir_Osis_of_Liver@cazabon@tod so just so I understand...a US company is responsible for urgent essential life saving Canadian services?
I think I see the problem. Govts should never entrust their basic responsibilities to others, let alone foreign ones, without very specific contracts and requirements in place.
@cazabon Explain then why they couldn't... just... pay?
They are advertising platforms. They exist to suck up ad revenues based on interesting content people interact with. Tipping out your cook and bartender is minimum courtesy.
@reneestephen@cazabon@tod The media companies chose to create accounts and publish their stories on social media because it was good for them, not because it benefited social media. Social media drives clicks and views, and therefore money, into these traditional media companies just by allowing them to share their content for free. If anything, the social media companies should be charging the traditional media companies for the advertising space they currently offer for free. The idea that the traditional media companies could charge the social media companies for a service provided by the latter is ludicrous. It's no wonder they chose to simply block the old news instead.
@LouisIngenthron If people didn't read only the headlines then scream at each other in the comments, never to set eyes on the actual article, I might agree with you...
Now there's very little difference between the CBC and the "Detroit Millennial" or whatever on FB -- it is merely fodder for engagement algorithms.
@reneestephen The user interface literally allows you to click any part of the headline or graphic and be taken directly to the source article. I'd hardly consider that a wall.
If I recall correctly, lede lines and bullet points existed long before the internet. And more importantly, they're written by the very companies looking to extort the social media companies... not the social media companies themselves. Those companies chose to rely on free social media to drive revenue and then they chose to adapt to maximize that revenue stream. They're responsible for their choices.
To me, it just seems like the old media has repeatedly shot themselves in the foot and now they're looking to pass the blame and costs onto the new media.
@reneestephen No, I'm referring to the Canadian law they lobbied for that forces social media companies to pay the old media companies for content they never solicited.
@reneestephen The fact that they're so willing and eager to part ways shows where the value proposition truly lies in the relationship.
If social media were really ripping off traditional media, traditional media would have parted ways with social media. But it's simply not true, no matter how much the old media wishes it was.
@LouisIngenthron Again, we'll see. "Old media" is the only one doing the actual reporting, and not just eyeball mining by throwing together scraped remixes. Facebook is a habit -- and, a forum -- and my bet is that it needs content more than content needs it. They are fundamentally different things.
@reneestephen You hit the nail on the head. Social media is a forum, not a newsstand. Does it benefit from some walk-in traffic because of the newsstand out front? Sure, but that's not critical to its business model, and they've clearly done the math and realized that paying the newsstand to stay would be more expensive than losing the customers it draws in.
Imagine if the law said you had to pay the postage for every letter or parcel that arrived at your doorstep. And you have no control who sends them, when or how many will arrive each week. I wouldn't be amused.
The link tax is equivalent. They have no control if people post ten links a day or a million.
I don't blame them for bailing. I'd have made the same decision in their shoes.
@mackaj@reneestephen@cazabon@tod Not a good analogy. I cannot monetize these imaginary unsolicited deliveries. If I was selling advertisements on the side of the delivery trucks, that would be closer to what happens. The fact of delivery generates income for me!
@LouisIngenthron Short and long term will be different. Right now FB is trying to make a point, but we'll see who the lack of engagement hurts more. Already my FB feed is full of promoted crap and really hilariously untargetted nonsense to fill the void, and I'm using it less as a result. We'll see who blinks first I guess.
They absolutely could pay. They can also choose not to pay (and not link). They picked the second option.
If you are trying to say that you want to force them to "choose" the other option, then say so explicitly. It would be unconstitutional, but you could at least be honest about your goals.
@cazabon Huh? Why would I want to force them to pay? That's a weird thing to infer from what I said.
I'm fine if they don't. Fewer people screaming in unmoderated comment sections, less engagement on the racist-uncle site... maybe the folks who got radicalized in 2016 and 2020 by manufactured bot-driven consensus will go outside and volunteer for a neighbourhood street-cleaning group or learn to spell together.
And learn to check reputable sources for current events.
@whvholst It is absolutely free to enter into contracts; that's not in question at all. It's clearly choosing not to. It's making that choice because it's greedy, and it thinks the media need it more than vice versa -- and gambling that the government will cave eventually.
I don't think it will, though. It's a bad bet. I think existing newsmedia will find other better ways to distribute. And that Canadians will stop using Facebook for news.
@reneestephen@cazabon@tod We have had the same debate in the EU and it still is a stupid argument that Meta and the other platforms owe the media companies money for bringing them an audience. That the media are struggling is because of their own short-sighted cession of advertising revenue to Google and others and still working with them on that front. That is the added value that they allow to get captured and creating new sui generis IPR won't fix it.
@whvholst Oh! Maybe it's a "stupid argument" bc you're misstating the premise! It isn't that Meta&ct owe money for "bringing an audience," it's the opposite.
The actual argument is Meta&ct are taking content and monetizing it in a way that does NOT lead to increased audience. People don't read the articles on the sites, they stay on Facebook and argue about the headline. FB gets a rich diversity of well-tagged content for the endless scroll; the news sites get little in return.
@whvholst When the important thing IS getting people to read just the headline because there is a local emergency and the message of "evacuate now so that you don't die," is more important than who profits off the content, and it needs to be seen across as many platforms as possible.
Every publisher in the world is willing to prioritize sending out public safety comms messaging for residents, and often has a channel with their local agencies for it. FB just had no process.
@reneestephen@tod@cazabon Which sums up why news facts shouldn't be under any form of copyright. Some jurisdictions even had exemptions on copyright to allow newspapers to mention each other's scoops. Because we shouldn't let anyone monopolise news.
If #newspaper A prints a scoop, newspaper B or website C is already free to write their own #article using facts from it. They can't just #copy the #article and change a few words, but they absolutely can use every fact from the original, and even #quote it with #attribution.
@cazabon@reneestephen@tod Having the royal assent of the Canadian law in front of me, it literally says "establishes a bargaining process in respect of matters related to the making available of certain news content by digital news intermediaries;" It by extension creates a sui generis (meaning not copyright) property right to news content. If it walks like a duck...
That's bill C18, unrelated to your idea that copyright or other Canadian law forbids you from using facts from someone else's story in writing your own.
If you don't believe me, then at least believe your own eyes - every newspaper, TV news program, radio news program, and internet web site does this every single day.
@whvholst No, you're doing ironically the same thing people on FB do -- reading the blurb without actually reading the article (well, law.)
News content != Facts. Content is a specific term re expression of ideas. "News content" is defined in the Act. You then need to read the next definition, "Making available news content" also specifically defined -- reproducing (copying) or indexing.
Citing news, reporting on scoops and facts, is not reproduction. That's all fair use.
@reneestephen@cazabon@tod For the sake of those you /cc: the definition says "any content" etc., so you're doing exactly what you're accusing me off. And yes, I am aware of Michael Geist's opinions on the law and mostly agree with them. But since you're lowering yourself to one-way communications I will simply block you now.
@whvholst
You are wrong, everybody else is right at least with respect to European law.
But the crux is: Alphabet & Meta apparently can't afford to just (completely legally) take the facts and write own words. They want (need) to take pieces verbatim without paying. That tells us something about how trustworthy their AIs are @reneestephen@cazabon@tod
The search and social media companies do not take pieces from news organizations and post them on their own sites verbatim and without permission. If they did, they would be violating copyright, and would lose a suit.
You say they want to; I have no opinion on that. It is not a violation of any law to want something. But they're not stupid enough to do it.
I have not Googled anything in many years; I do not like Google, the company, and so I do not use any Google products.
To confirm my understanding, I just opened Google search in a disposable browser, entered Prigozhin as a search term, and then selected "News" to filter the results.
What I see are thumbnail images and headlines, along with a very short snippet of the first sentence from each article, not even complete. In no way is it complete articles.
@toxomat@cazabon Well, in exact this country, germany, with said "Schranken des Urheberrechts", the publishes luckily failed to make GAFAM pay for their views..
Hrm .... maybe we actually should try to ask publishers for compensation that their content is actually listed on GAFAM platforms? /s
Srsly ...... those laws asking for money because $anyone has a big platform where it is profitable to publish leads should pay to host them are IMHO just simply bullshit ... from a to z.
@whvholst No, they do not. They impinge on the free expression of platform users to share links, but that does not mean users can't read or talk about the news. And it does nothing to change the ability of other publishers to report on the news either.
You can't #patent#text, or stories, or any #narrative. Patents are only for "#practical#devices" (though you don't actually have to prove it works, or even build one), although that has been (incorrectly, IMHO) extended to #software as well.
Some #jurisdictions recognize a second kind of patent, called a #design patent, which protects the "look and feel" of whatever's being patented. It also does not apply to text.
@tomcrinstam You know it is very easy for newspapers to not show up in Google, right? Include a small file and you're not indexed. Nobody will find your news.
So, why do you think news websites have an SEO department to show up high in Google instead of excluding themselves?
Because Google brings them value, eyeballs, not the other way around.
@petrichor7020 For the same reason an author will promote their book but still object to someone else giving copies of it away for free as a perk to their own customers without paying for it.
@tomcrinstam@petrichor7020 The news companies themselves post their own stories to Facebook. They can hardly cry theft after giving their own content away.
@tomcrinstam@cazabon@tod Fundamentally, news orgs were demanding money for links, which breaks the way that the internet has worked for its entire existence. And going forward, this sets a horrible precedent. I am not sure why legacy news orgs felt that they deserve a kickback for a link on Facebook, given that every click leads to advertising dollars. Facebook did the rational thing here, even though we can all agree it’s bad for society.
@UncivilServant Close, but not quite. The law makes social media have to pay traditional media any time someone posts a link to that traditional media on social media. So, the law doesn't "prevent" them from linking to news, but it does make it prohibitively expensive to the point where social media blocking the news was an expected and inevitable outcome.
@tod As a journalist, you are claiming “thousands of citizens aren’t aware because Meta continues to block news in the country.” Do you have, or have someone with, boots on the ground in Yellowknife, and have proof that thousands aren’t aware of the evacuation orders? I would be curious to see some of the details surrounding this claim. Or as a Canadian journalist, are you just pissed at Meta for being Meta? Call me a skeptic if you will.
It's way more complex but it allows for some consistent yet realistic approaches.
I.e. one can acknowledge that #grsecurity and #RedHat showed the need for stronger #Copyleft whilst also noting that neither #GPLv3 nor #AGPLv3 nor #SSPL doesn't adress that problem and instead demand illegal actions to comply [i.e. surrendering all patents] which ignore the reality of #tech.
@kkarhan@tod
So how would you suggest governments regulate an entity that is basically above all laws and actively aspires to destroy any kind of competition without concern for loss of life or liberties?
If it was my decision, #StasiBook / #NSAbook and other #PRISM collaborators as well as their products would've been banned from the #EU and working with and for them being criminalized since it's an act of #illegal#foreign#espionage.
@kkarhan
I agree with you that Meta et al need to be broken up, but this decision is solely in the hands of the US government - where Canada (and all other countries) has absolutely no control. This is a bandaid option to help starving local media outlets - the backbone of democracy - from dying. It is not perfect, but it is not fascism. Banning things outright is fascism and isolationist. Forcing your ideas on an unwilling population is fascism. But yes, I agree that we shouldn’t use Meta.
Banning GAFAMs for Espionage is as legitimate as sanctioning a North Korean Front used to launder money or going after "P.R." China's "Overseas Police" which is basically a network of foreign agents conspiring in everything from embezzlement and blackmailing to bamb threats and forced disappearances...
@JustinLachance but since that requires politicans to actually have a spine and ve principled, it's up to the individual to act accordingly and boycott them just like one would boycott a North Korean (regine controlled!) Restaurant or some shitty ultra - "fast fashion" label that manages to run sweatshops so inhumane that they manage to break labour regulations in Bangladesh & "P.R." China...
@JustinLachance I mean you literally get people who whine about #Microsoft's shitty #DarkPattern and how they force people to make a value-removing account with them but apparently #TechIlliterates rather accept more and harder abuse than even trying out something that doesn't trample their #HumanRights instead.
@kkarhan Yeah, you seem to know your stuff. While I try to stay informed on the matter, most people don’t (or can’t). It’s human nature. If there is an easier option, most people will chose it.
I see this link tax as part of a joint long game plan (that’s watched by other jurisdictions like California) to force Meta into a situation that will limit its power. It’s not perfect, but calling it fascism inadvertently helps Meta et al’s unchallenged domination of the world’s media landscape.
@grumpygamer Canada isn’t blocking news. That decision was Meta’s and Meta’s alone. You’re welcome to argue the “but they had no choice” model, but they absolutely have a choice. They chose to block news from Canadians.
@tod@grumpygamer Yes, they chose that because Canada chose to make it prohibitively expensive to continue to welcome the news on their platform.
When we place a tax on gasoline, we expect to see a lower volume of sales on gasoline, and we don't blame the consumers for buying less. Why wouldn't the same be true of news or anything else?
@LouisIngenthron@tod Because link taxes break the internet. I hate big cooperations and facebook more than anyone, but link taxes will become a way to further oppress information if they become the norm.
It is also important to underline the role media had in this. For over a decade, media has been outright pushing people onto Fb — "follow us on…", "more in our post on…", "you can reach us on…" — willingly, gladly even giving away direct access to their audience to a Silicon Valley corporation.
And now the same media demand payment for posting links on Fb, and are making a surprised picachu face that Fb is abusing its power to use underhanded tactics against that.
@tod I wonder when the media wakes up and starts promoting their own RSS channels, newsletters, and the like, and start rebuilding that direct relationship with their audiences.
Following this a longer time now, Canadian publishers are greedy bastards, German publishers tried the same a couple years ago with Google search. Their arguments aren’t true.
@frumble isn't that what I said two toots above? I literally mentioned that the media created this situation. I am aware of the link tax issue. And I am aware that a lot of the blame needs to be put on the media here.
@frumble basically both sides in this whole thing are absolutely awful. Whichever side wins, we all lose.
Either Facebook once again proves even governments can't properly deal with it…
…or the media gets cozy with Facebook monies — which I am sure will not end up gatekeeping smaller independent media orgs out, and in no way, nuh-huh, would influence how media reports on Facebook, which at that point would become media's biggest source of income.
@rysiek Maybe I got this wrong but this conflict isn’t about Meta demanding money from the publishers for reach. That’s a whole other issue. But they aren’t connected in the link tax.
I was talking about Facebook banning news links in Canada as a strong-arm tactic against the (awful) link tax legislation that the media is mushing for.
The deeper reasons of how we got here does include Facebook demanding payment for reach and in general undermining media for a decade in all sorts of ways, but that's not what I was directly referencing. Sorry for the confusion.
> And now the same media is doing a surprised picachu face that the corporation is abusing this power [to use strong-arm tactics against the link-tax law], and [the media] demand payment for posting links [on Facebook].
Does that make more sense? Can't really fit it on there, but I can see how the confusion could have happened.
@rysiek In fact, NPR has been building its RSS feeds up over the last couple of months, since they left Twitter. Let’s hope the tech industry can make RSS feeds a little easier for “the masses” to understand and use.
@tod nice! The tech industry can make that happen if there is enough interest and push for it. It's a chicken and egg problem, really. I've already seen some tech people start doing interesting things with RSS, so there is hope.
@rysiek@tod the media (and citizens) also often neglect its own substantial resources in linear TV and particularly radio networks - these can be still be made to work independently of the Internet (but many PSBs as well as commercial broadcasters have reduced their resilience by cost cutting and downsizing)
@jerrymacgp Our local emergency response program on Salt Spring includes a door to door volunteer component as well as alerts and also the Fire Chief standing in front of the grocery store serving hot dogs to encourage people to sign up for the app. It's a lot more work than FB but ...also more resilent. @tod
@Babcia54 My wife and I have many friends and family in Yellowknife. The stories of people who are blissfully unaware of— because all they read is Facebook — is terrifying.
Add comment