Canadians will no longer have access to news content on Facebook and Instagram, Meta says

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Are you saying that individual posters linking media to Facebook should make facebook pay?

I'm saying that Meta gets a disproportionate share of internet ad revenue for hosting news media content.  

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Are you saying the news media itself having facebook pages should mean facebook should pay them? I am on facebooks side here. Shut them out completely. Problem solved.  Then see who does the whining.

Yeah sure.  The problem for facebook will be that whatever ad revenue the news site is making from that pales in comparison to what Meta gets for hosting the creators' content.  

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Actually, in the end Standard Oil did very well when forced to split.

Standard Oil, for all intents and purposes, was gone.  They were broken up into 40+ separate entities and lost their 95% monopoly.  If that's what you call doing very well, I don't want to know what the opposite would have looked like.  

Edited June 26, 2023 by Moonbox

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

1. We, the people, want free and open communication and object strongly against censorship.

2. Making private industry pay for what the media itself is doing and for what people post is hidden censorship.

3. I am not sure where I am at odds with the big ideas our society is built on.

4. Innovation is generally rewarded...by our and the worlds patent process and, of course by the market. We have choices, read or not, consume or not, go or don't go, buy or don't buy.

5. Government have let the market decide but now, they select where they step in. Is facebooks take on what is on the pages posted by users more important to Canadians than the price of gas being the same at all the pumps? Or that Canada has the most expensive internet/mobile prices in the world? Why not step in to something that actually affects us daily ...or are protecting newspapers more important?

6. Bottom line, Canada does not have an anti monopoly law per say. We have the Competition Bureau that "support and protect Canadians by fostering a competitive and innovative marketplace." and "It is unlawful for competitors to agree or arrange to: Fix, maintain, increase or control prices (including discounts, rebates, allowances, concessions or other advantages) Allocate sales, territories, customers or markets. Fix or control the production or supply of a product".  The Facebook issue is not in that category . That is why the government had to pass a new law.

 

1. Of course this is true.
2. I don't see how... since.... well, there is already MORE censorship in what social media does to filter stories than there is with the source material from the news outlets.  Also most of the news outlets are themselves "private industry".  So I can't make sense out of this statement.  
3. Well, maybe I'm not sure if you are after all.  We do now that  "democratic" society is built on the idea that the press influences people, and inherently accepts that there is no one truth but a multiplicity of truths in the public sphere.  If you say that "we the people want free and open communication" then that doesn't speak to how the information ecosystem is structured..  ie. the press as the Fourth Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate
4. Individual choices are limited by monopolies, which is the point.  You don't have a choice if there's only one provider.  And media is a bigger problem, when monopolized, than say electronics or even telecom.
5. Well, single-sourcing the press would be super efficient and wouldn't affect us daily but would you support that ?  Have you ever heard of the effect of the Irving monopoly in eastern Canada ?
6. You could argue that Facebook would utterly control the supply of a product, ie. information.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Of course this is true.
2. I don't see how... since.... well, there is already MORE censorship in what social media does to filter stories than there is with the source material from the news outlets.  Also most of the news outlets are themselves "private industry".  So I can't make sense out of this statement.  
3. Well, maybe I'm not sure if you are after all.  We do now that  "democratic" society is built on the idea that the press influences people, and inherently accepts that there is no one truth but a multiplicity of truths in the public sphere.  If you say that "we the people want free and open communication" then that doesn't speak to how the information ecosystem is structured..  ie. the press as the Fourth Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate
4. Individual choices are limited by monopolies, which is the point.  You don't have a choice if there's only one provider.  And media is a bigger problem, when monopolized, than say electronics or even telecom.
5. Well, single-sourcing the press would be super efficient and wouldn't affect us daily but would you support that ?  Have you ever heard of the effect of the Irving monopoly in eastern Canada ?
6. You could argue that Facebook would utterly control the supply of a product, ie. information.

This debate can go on for a long time.

In my opinion, to pass a law specifically to make someone pay for something they are not doing is wrong. In this case, for Meta to ban and censure all Canadian news is what a corporation that has a law passed against its operation is justified.

Insinuating that Meta is a monopoly is also incorrect. If there were others and Meta is doing something to inhibit them, then yes but, Meta stands on its own.

We disagree and so it is

 

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. ... to pass a law specifically to make someone pay for something they are not doing is wrong.

2. In this case, for Meta to ban and censure all Canadian news is what a corporation that has a law passed against its operation is justified.

3. Insinuating that Meta is a monopoly is also incorrect. If there were others and Meta is doing something to inhibit them, then yes but, Meta stands on its own.

4. We disagree and so it is

 

1. The idea being that they are borrowing content from another source and getting their revenue.  Paying back to the source would help maintain the traditional "press".  

2. I agree that that response is justified, and would be if the law were passed.

3.  Meta "stands on its own" is an odd way to say it's not a monopoly ?

4. We agree on the current situation and such, but I sense we have a big gap in how we think of "media".  To assume it's like any product is very wrongheaded in my opinion and in fact our media landscape is in trouble, and that's a crisis of the highest order.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. The idea being that they are borrowing content from another source and getting their revenue.  Paying back to the source would help maintain the traditional "press".  

2. I agree that that response is justified, and would be if the law were passed.

3.  Meta "stands on its own" is an odd way to say it's not a monopoly ?

4. We agree on the current situation and such, but I sense we have a big gap in how we think of "media".  To assume it's like any product is very wrongheaded in my opinion and in fact our media landscape is in trouble, and that's a crisis of the highest order.

1. They are not "borrowing" anything. CTV, CBC< etc pay Meta to have a page. Other stuff is posted by users. I do not know where or why yu seem to think it is Meta thta is posting things.

2. The law passed, by the Senate last week.

3. Meta stands on its  own as who is the competition??

4. I fully understand what "media" is. Media needs to sell itself and it does so by posting on Meta. Media is a "product" for consumer consumption or not. A newspaper sells itself to people.The fact people choose not to subscribe anymore is not the fault of Meta or social media. Same goes for TV news that also posts on Meta. Some newspapers are even behind a paywall so if you want to read it, you have to pay them. If I subscribe to an e edition of the Sun and cut and paste it to Facebook, is it Meta stealing or is it me?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. The idea being that they are borrowing content from another source and getting their revenue.  Paying back to the source would help maintain the traditional "press".  

 

The problem is they are not - their users are.  It's not like facebook itself is posting news stories. Canadians go to free websites and post news stories from the papers that can be accessed for free and say "look at this story blah blah".  Many of the actual news companies have sites that they post their own content for free.

So - what you're really doing is penalizing these companies for what their users are posting. So all they can do is ban users from posting it.

I would imagine come groups like 'google news' might be affected but for the most part that's not the issue.

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. They are not "borrowing" anything. CTV, CBC< etc pay Meta to have a page. Other stuff is posted by users. I do not know where or why yu seem to think it is Meta thta is posting things.

2. The law passed, by the Senate last week.

3. Meta stands on its  own as who is the competition??

4. I fully understand what "media" is.  Media needs to sell itself and it does so by posting on Meta. Media is a "product" for consumer consumption or not. A newspaper sells itself to people.The fact people choose not to subscribe anymore is not the fault of Meta or social media. Same goes for TV news that also posts on Meta. Some newspapers are even behind a paywall so if you want to read it, you have to pay them.
5. If I subscribe to an e edition of the Sun and cut and paste it to Facebook, is it Meta stealing or is it me?

1. Ok - I thought this was solely a revenue thing.  Let me take this away and correct myself.
2. Ok.
3. ... it's a monopoly so ... nobody
4. You fully understand it, fine, but we don't agree on it.   
5. The issue is that Twitter can't be expected to replace The National Post etc.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok - I thought this was solely a revenue thing.  Let me take this away and correct myself.
2. Ok.
3. ... it's a monopoly so ... nobody
4. You fully understand it, fine, but we don't agree on it.   
5. The issue is that Twitter can't be expected to replace The National Post etc.

I think we (I) beat this horse to death. Thanks for the talk

[herbie]

I have a popular community web portal, local companies get free listings of their address, phone number, restaurant menu and link to their website. I said website, not f***ing FB page or freebie site. They can pay me if they want those listed.

BTW those F***me stix don't work, neither does making poached eggs in your microwave, putting ice on your elbow to miracle cure prostate cancer, you can't buy an electric wheelchair for $29.95 or 4 TB USB sticks for $19.95

I'd say just make an $8.99 per month TAX to allow people to access FB and Instagram and there'd be no problem.