TSUN: CBC provides no value at huge expense to taxpayers (new cbc 'tax')

[CdnFox]

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/sims-cbc-provides-no-value-at-huge-expense-to-taxpayers

The Online News Act, Bill C-18, is the federal law forcing big tech to pay media companies when a link to a news story is posted on platforms such as Google and Facebook.

The hidden snare of Bill C-18 is that the CBC will capture the lion’s share of the online link money instead of privately owned news outlets.

Since the CBC is a wing of the federal government, this is now a new tax.

 

Short version of the rest -  the cbc's ratings are crap, they don't provide canadian or aboriginal content nearly as well as other private groups do for a fraction of the money, and the pay for the directors is almost 19 million alone.

 

There is NO point to the CBC any more. There's no where that can't get internet one way or another and if you have internet you have access to all the programming news and info you could possibly need to be every bit as misinformed as anyone living in the city.

Honestly - i dont' think just defunding is enough. I think the gov't should take the CBC back over, shut it down and sell off it's assets to recoup taxpayer money.

[Michael Hardner]

Fascinating that government-subsidized media are criticizing each other over being subsidized...

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Fascinating that government-subsidized media are criticizing each other over being subsidized...

Sure - the cbc and the toronto sun are exactly the same thing as far as gov't subsidy goes.

You don't have an honest bone in your body do you .

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure - the cbc and the toronto sun are exactly the same thing as far as gov't subsidy goes.

You don't have an honest bone in your body do you .

Did you even know the Sun was run on government money ?  WIthout it they'd be gone.

But Trudeau wants to censor people and take over media... that's why he funds the paper that throws rocks at him... or... err....

[BeaverFever]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/sims-cbc-provides-no-value-at-huge-expense-to-taxpayers

The Online News Act, Bill C-18, is the federal law forcing big tech to pay media companies when a link to a news story is posted on platforms such as Google and Facebook.

The hidden snare of Bill C-18 is that the CBC will capture the lion’s share of the online link money instead of privately owned news outlets.

Since the CBC is a wing of the federal government, this is now a new tax.

 

Short version of the rest -  the cbc's ratings are crap, they don't provide canadian or aboriginal content nearly as well as other private groups do for a fraction of the money, and the pay for the directors is almost 19 million alone.

 

There is NO point to the CBC any more. There's no where that can't get internet one way or another and if you have internet you have access to all the programming news and info you could possibly need to be every bit as misinformed as anyone living in the city.

Honestly - i dont' think just defunding is enough. I think the gov't should take the CBC back over, shut it down and sell off it's assets to recoup taxpayer money.

Oh how the children grow up so fast.  Seems like just yesterday the righties were screaming batshit that Google, Facebook and “Big Tech” were conspiring against conservatives, stealing elections from Trump, secretly funding Democrat campaigns and so forth and needed to be “broken up”  Where does the time go?

So first off the Sun article in the OP is technically incorrect and misleading as usual for the Sun. Big Tech does not have to pay when a media LINK to an article is posted on their platform.  They have to pay only if they use technology that copies the article and reposts it on their platform because that is like stealing someone’s work, photocopying it and selling it for profit.  Currently only facebook and “Google Amp” use technology that does this.  So the Sun article is only accurate in the sense that whenever a user “posts a link” on FB or google, those platforms automatically steal and repost the entire article. But again to reiterate they don’t have to pay just because there’s a link they only have to pay if they steal and repost the article. This has been a controversial and criticized practice for long time, Google Amp came out in 2015.  

Why do Google and FB do it?  Because they want the web traffic that these news stories generate when people share them and they want the ad revenue from those viewers going to them not the news outlets that actually paid people to create the content. Secondly they don’t want users leaving their platform to read articles or anything else. It’s theft plain and simple. 
 

If you were to make photocopies of the The Sun and sell it, that is illegal and I guarantee the Sun would come after you. 
 

Second point which the sun amd you totally gloss ocer. Have either of you wondered why “the CBC will capture the lion’s share of the online link money instead of privately owned news outlets.”?  It’s because they produce the lion’s share of the content  that these platforms are stealing. This entirely contradicts the claim that CBC is irrelevant   In fact you should celebrate the idea that CBC content which you hate so much and think is evil con will no longer be free on these platforms as that means less of it will be shared. It’s kind of puzzling that you’re outraged really. 
 

Also as you probably don’t know the Canadian legislation was copied from similar legislation passed in Australia in 2020 so there goes your ‘evil Trudeau conspiracy’ routine for the day. 

Edited October 13, 2023 by BeaverFever

[PIK]

The only reason for the gov funding of the media was to keep the TO STAR afloat.

[CdnFox]

23 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Oh how the children grow up so fast.  Seems like just yesterday the righties were screaming batshit that Google, Facebook and “Big Tech” were conspiring against conservatives, stealing elections from Trump, secretly funding Democrat campaigns and so forth and needed to be “broken up”  Where does the time go?

ROFLMAO - yes - right wing children grow up while apparently left wing children like you never do

Google et al practice bias censorship. That is still true.

Trudeau is now practicing even MORE censorship. That is also true.

One does not somehow make the other go away.

25 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Why do Google and FB do it?  

And here once again you're wrong and being dishonest about it.

Face book and google don't do it. The user's do it. They post the stories, they post the links. For google of course it will be web searches but the same applies.

And it's not stealing anything.

28 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

It’s because they produce the lion’s share of the content  that these platforms are stealing.

Isn't the cbc funded by the people primarialy? SO - the public funds them, the public posts the stories they produce on social media for the pubic to see and enjoy.. and some how it's theft.

 

The sooner we defend the cbc (or better yet sell it off) the better.

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And here once again you're wrong and being dishonest about it.

Face book and google don't do it. The user's do it. They post the stories, they post the links. For google of course it will be web searches but the same applies.

And it's not stealing anything.

People don’t post to google, genius. Do you even own a computer?
 

 As I explained already, t’s not about the links it’s about stealing the entire article.  For FB if you only post a link their algorithm actually DOWNGRADES your post because links take people off their site and they don’t like that. It’s absolutely stealing 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

sn't the cbc funded by the people primarialy? SO - the public funds them, the public posts the stories they produce on social media for the pubic to see and enjoy.. and some how it's theft.

Facebook users aren’t the same as taxpayers or voters and if the CBCsad revenue drops public funding would probably increase. Besides don’t lake this just about CBC privately funded media are just as badly affected if not worse because they are more reliant on ad revenue. Where will news come from once facebook and google have sucked all the media sources dry and they shut down? Your secretly Egyptian troll YouTube channels masquerading as domestic content?  I bet you would like that. 
 

I can’t believe this is something conservatives are even getting upset about it literally affects nobody except greedy big tech content thieves. It’s just oppositional defiance disorder because JT happens to be the PM when this legislation was brought in so they’re screaming bloody murder about a total non-issue.  I bet once PP is PM the whole thing will be forgotten about, never to be spoken of again. Google News worked just fine before they started stealing content on “Amp” and  they will probably just go back to the way they did things pre-2015. FB will go back to just sharing links or snippets without stealing the entire article and robbing content creators of their fair revenue.  And PP will not say a peep. 

Edited October 13, 2023 by BeaverFever

[CdnFox]

36 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

People don’t post to google, genius. Do you even own a computer?
 

ummm - literally fom what you quoteed:

" For google of course it will be web searches "

ROFLMAO!!!!! ' Whats the matter boy, too stupid to read???? LOLOL

Man - you sure don't make it hard to make you look stupid do you   it was right there

Lets go through the rest quikcly -

Facebook users ARE taxpayers.  What you thought they were aliens or something? - FAIL

Not being able to share stories and discuss them easily affects everyone.

And no - it wasn't that "JT JUST HAPPENED" to be in power. That's stupid.

once again you've managed to be wrong about eveything. Well done. You're not very bright but by god at least you're consistent   

 

At the end of the day though - the story is about the fact that the cbc is useless and should be scrapped. And that is definitely also true

[BeaverFever]

24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

ummm - literally fom what you quoteed:

" For google of course it will be web searches "

ROFLMAO!!!!! ' Whats the matter boy, too stupid to read???? LOLOL

Man - you sure don't make it hard to make you look stupid do you   it was right there

Lets go through the rest quikcly -

Facebook users ARE taxpayers.  What you thought they were aliens or something? - FAIL

Not being able to share stories and discuss them easily affects everyone.

And no - it wasn't that "JT JUST HAPPENED" to be in power. That's stupid.

once again you've managed to be wrong about eveything. Well done. You're not very bright but by god at least you're consistent   

 

At the end of the day though - the story is about the fact that the cbc is useless and should be scrapped. And that is definitely also true

How are you this dense?  Sharing a link is not the problem. The problem is that FB and Google have in the past few years resorted to ripping off news outlets’ entire articles and reposting them on their own website in order to steal the ad revenue generated. What is so hard to understand?  A few years ago they weren’t doing it, and everyone was still able to share and discuss stories easily.  And social platforms that don’t steal content including Twitter are unaffected. We even do it on this forum and hundreds like it every day  

Facebook users are not necessarily the same as the people paying the taxes. There are kids, people in other countries, and of course many taxpayers aren’t on FB at all. FB a US company, doesn’t get to decide what will of the Canadian people is. And there is no evidence that the Canadian people or even Canadian Facebook users feel strongly about going back to the way things wee before Facebook started stealing content. Facebook just started doing it for their own selfish reasons. 

It’s totally about anti-JT oppositional defiance disorder. The volume of shrieking from conservatives is out of all proportion to the gravity of the issue. 
 

 

… oh and by the way, Google and FB pulled the same news blackout stunt in Australia when Australia passed this law…but they eventually came to a negotiated settlement with the government and now they pay outlets for content in the Down Under.  

Edited October 13, 2023 by BeaverFever

[CdnFox]

20 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

How are you this dense?  

Says the guy who coudln't even read what i said about google  

Sorry kiddo - you've already been wrong so much i guess you forget when you're an !diot now That eff up cost you the right to call other people stupid for a while i think  

Quote

Sharing a link is not the problem. The problem is that FB and Google have in the past few years resorted to ripping off news outlets’ entire articles and reposting them on their own website in order to steal the ad revenue generated.

Sharing a link is the problem. Allowing users to post content freely avaiable on the news sites is a problem. This isn't about google or facebook stealing anything.  Sorry if you thought it was but - as usual -you're wrnog. Which is why they wont' be allowing links to canadian news sites.

The customers post the stories.  Not facebook or google or anyone else.  So if I go post a news story on facebook then that's the problem this is trying to fix. Not facebook 'stealing'.

It's embarrassing that had to be explained to you

Austrailia was forced to cave. Individual companies wind up having to do their own deals just to have their stuff allowed on those platforms and it's hurt their media industry.  IT was a bad idea and of course trudeau imported it because he's never seen a bad idea he didn't love.

This won't hurt google and facebook one bit. But it will be a bad deal for canadians.

 

However  if we axe the cbc all that ad revenue will flow to the other media outlets and that will help a lot 

 

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Asking for a friend.

[Zeitgeist]

Well Google and Facebook have solved this problem for themselves by no longer providing Canadian news content.  Somehow that’s a win for Canadian news outlets?  This bill and C-11 are just more attempts to regulate what people are allowed to watch and think.

I think when Canada was a smaller country and seemed to be doing some things better than the Americans and Brits, there was an argument for protecting a “Canadian perspective”.  Now that Canadians produce so much successful content and the Canadian government has become an isolated, overreaching, soulless sycophant of EU-China style nanny quasi-totalitarianism, the CBC should be defunded and the CRTC mostly disbanded.

Why are we propping up organizations that propagandize on behalf of government and don’t call out terrorism or make government accountable?

We’d be better off taking the money, going to the casino roulette wheel, and betting it all on black.  

Edited October 13, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[myata]

I would like to clarify an essential question about the link vs. the full content. Does the bill require to pay for sharing links, or not?

Or is it the Big Tech companies that are making it look like the same thing? It is not obviously, and it does not have to be. Really, when a serious regulatory jurisdiction like US or EU decide something, they only oblige. The law should not require to pay for sharing links, it's user information. It can and should enforce charges for copying full content.

Does EU law allows copying the content to social networks without paying the creator? This wouldn't sound very plausible to me at least.

Edited October 13, 2023 by myata

[myata]

It's just too bad that between the government that is so used to be run in an environment completely devoid of any notion of transparency and accountability - to the extent that it treats it as its privilege and "prerogative", and the social media companies whose primary interest is profit, it's so hard to find out the truth. This style of quasi-democracy is running out of time. Where citizens cannot know, democracy cannot thrive.

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, myata said:

I would like to clarify an essential question about the link vs. the full content. Does the bill require to pay for sharing links, or not?

Here's the bill, you can read it yourself and see what you think.

https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-18

It is an insanely vague and arbitrary act.

Not only is it entirely vague and abitrary (applies to anyone the gov't says it does only with no clear criteria other than 'theys big"), but it absolutely could apply to virtually anything including links, full text, even synopsis.

So if google posts a link to a story in the tyee and there's advertising on the page - does that count? Sure - if the gov't says so. And then google will be ordered to make a deal with the tyee.

Will it apply to duck duck go as well? maybe - maybe not. Decides if the gov't thinks they're 'big' .

What if google and the tyee can't reach a deal, can it be solved in court? Nope  - a canadian arbitrator will be appointed.

Basically - if the media company makes money in ANY WAY from canadian media content - including links on a page that has adverts or partial copies of the stories etc - it could apply to them but they won't know till the gov't decides if they're 'big' or not.

 

So when beaverfever tries to claim it doesn't include links - he's lying. It can include ANYTHING the gov't decides.

[Michael Hardner]

33 minutes ago, myata said:

It's just too bad that between the government that is so used to be run in an environment completely devoid of any notion of transparency and accountability - to the extent that it treats it as its privilege and "prerogative", and the social media companies whose primary interest is profit, it's so hard to find out the truth. This style of quasi-democracy is running out of time. Where citizens cannot know, democracy cannot thrive.

Well sure but every country is having a problem with social media, even the country that owns the companies...

[myata]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well sure but every country is having a problem with social media

Yes but there are different ways to address it. A responsible way from the government would be to make it transparent and clear: in cases where content is copied without permission, the owner is entitled to some compensation. Showing or sharing a link has nothing to do with copying content; only passing information where it can be found, the news stand is two blocks on the left. One may or may not follow the link. A link is not the content, obviously.

The companies could refrain from copying the content that doesn't belong to them and for everything else, take the government straight to the court (we will pay as always, unfortunately).

That would be a smart and responsible way to deal with the problem.

Edited October 14, 2023 by myata

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, myata said:

Yes but there are different ways to address it. A responsible way from the government would be to make it transparent and clear: in cases where content is copied without permission, the owner is entitled for some compensation. Showing or sharing a link has nothing to do with copying content; only passing information where it can be found, the news stand is two blocks on the left. One may or may not follow the link. A link is not the content, obviously.

The companies could refrain from copying the content that doesn't belong to them and for everything else, take the government straight to the court (we will pay as always, unfortunately).

That would be a smart and responsible way to deal with the problem.

You're right in as much as if they are going to do something, it should be clear and consistent and apply to everyone, not just companies that teh gov't decides are 'big', which is literally what this law says with no definition of what 'big' is other than 'bigger than the news outlet'.