Tried to post a video of a guy building an ATV and Canadian government won't allow it

[blackbird]

I tried to post a video of a guy building an ATV from old car parts on Facebook, but FB says it can't be shared because Canadian government does not allow sharing "news content".  This is not news content.  Just a guy building an ATV.  This is what Big Brother Marxist government has come to.

Man Spends 1000 Hours Building All-Terrain Vehicle From Old Car Parts! by @DonnDIY | Watch (msn.com)

This is an incredible ATV he has built.

Edited Tuesday at 11:46 PM by blackbird

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I tried to post a video of a guy building an ATV from old car parts on Facebook, but FB says it can't be shared because Canadian government does not allow sharing "news content".  This is not news content.  Just a guy building an ATV.  This is what Big Brother Marxist government has come to.

Man Spends 1000 Hours Building All-Terrain Vehicle From Old Car Parts! by @DonnDIY | Watch (msn.com)

He should have told them that it was battery powered electric EV  ATV. Then they'd have allowed it  

[Michael Hardner]

The government most definitely wants Facebook to share news but Facebook doesn't want to pay the tax that pays Canadian news back for the content they steal you see.  And Facebook could separate such things if they wanted to but why would they ?  

[herbie]

F*cking dummy FaceBook won't allow it, not the Cdn govt!

The same Facebook that DOES allow posting ads for tax free cigarettes that is not only immoral but illegal tobacco advertising. You're trying to blame the Govt of Canada for Zuckerburg's refusal to join in for Canadian content providers and condone his p1ss poor attempt at regulating his own site's content?

Shame on you!

Edited Tuesday at 09:48 PM by herbie

[CdnFox]

Just now, herbie said:

F*cking dummy FaceBook won't allow it, not the Cdn govt!

The sane Facebook that DOES allow posting ads for tax free cigarettes that is not only immoral but illegal tobacco advertising. You're trying to blame the Govt of Canada for Zuckerburg's refusal to chip in for Canadian news content and p1ss poor attempt at regulating his own site's content?

Shame on you!

Not sure who you're talking to (not sure YOU"RE sure either )  but the canadian gov't has said facebook can't post 'news'  unless they pay a fee.  they don't want to pay a fee so they comply with the canadian gov'ts restrictions.

It's 100 percent the Canadian gov't.  If they hadn't imposed that restriction or demanded money then facebook would be happy to do it.

Thanks for keeping up

[Aristides]

It’s Facebook deciding it is sharing news and refusing to post it. Nothing to do with the feds.

Alleged “news” gets posted on Facebook all the time.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Aristides said:

It’s Facebook deciding it is sharing news and refusing to post it.

The feds have passed rules about what they can do, they're following the rules. It's got everything to do with the feds. Was this a problem before the fed's new rules? No.

If you don't like the effect that the liberal parties rules have on your life, then maybe you should stop supporting the liberal party. Or at the very least speak out against their laws when they are stupid.

This is exactly the kind of crap you support when you support the left. Very simply put if the conservatives have been in power you'd still be able to see the video.

[herbie]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Not sure who you're talking to

Not sure you exist. In the age of AI a 1965 Chatty Cathy doll could just yap the same 10 phrases when it's string was pulled.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, herbie said:

Not sure you exist.

I'm sure that many other people just seem like one of the many voices in your head and it's hard to distinguish. I understand that mental health issues like yours can be difficult to cope with.

Quote

In the age of AI a 1965 Chatty Cathy doll could just yap the same 10 phrases when it's string was pulled.

Well you are up to at least 25 so well done. Neener neener cathy!

Also I find it mildly disturbing that you would own "Dolls" All the way back in the '60s. Couldn't you find a date?

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The government most definitely wants Facebook to share news but Facebook doesn't want to pay the tax that pays Canadian news back for the content they steal you see.  And Facebook could separate such things if they wanted to but why would they ?  

Facebook has millions of users.  FB would have to employ an army of people to read every attachment someone made and they don't charge for users on FB to post links.  So why would FB pay a fortune to allow people to post links now that the government wants money for every news item posted.  Of course they are just going to cut off or block links such as the one I tried to make which came from MSN.  FB doesn't have the manpower to examine every posting from MSN to see see if it is news or not.  This is the real problem with the government meddling in the internet.  The government simply doesn't know what they are doing and the consequences.  

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, blackbird said:

Facebook has millions of users.  FB would have to employ an army of people to read every attachment someone made and they don't charge for users on FB to post links.  So why would FB pay a fortune to allow people to post links now that the government wants money for every news item posted.  Of course they are just going to cut off or block links such as the one I tried to make which came from MSN.  FB doesn't have the manpower to examine every posting from MSN to see see if it is news or not.  This is the real problem with the government meddling in the internet.  The government simply doesn't know what they are doing and the consequences.  

Well, firstly, I'm glad you're stepping back from the implication that the government is censoring anything.

Secondly, of course Facebook can afford to do this. Google is paying, so why not Facebook.  They use AI to assist with moderation, which is why it screws up frequently.

That that government doesn't know what it's doing is true.  Only Australia is trying to control the internet like this.  So it's new territory.

The thing is, we are in an age where protectionism is coming back.  And that applies to media as well as Electric Vehicles.

I don't blame you for thinking that the government is censoring things, as that's how it's being sold to us.

[ExFlyer]

I am so against the feds taxing social media.

While social media sells advertising, that is their business, most people are pissed they cannot add links (like backbrid) . It is not social media posting the links, it is the users. Tax the users.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

 

While social media sells advertising, that is their business, most people are pissed they cannot add links (like backbrid) . It is not social media posting the links, it is the users. Tax the users.

But the business gets the money.

 

Are you against tariffs in general?  The reasons here are similar as for cars and cheese...

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

But the business gets the money.

 

Are you against tariffs in general?  The reasons here are similar as for cars and cheese...

That may be true but nobody would claim that somehow the cheese manufacturers are responsible for the fact they can't sell their product in Canada due to gov't regulation. 

No matter how you want to slice it, call it a tax or a tariff or whatever floats your boat, at the end of the day the problem exists because of the Canadian government. I don't think I would call it censorship but without a doubt if you believe that we should have access to those services then you have to look to the Canadian government to explain their actions

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, CdnFox said:

1. That may be true but nobody would claim that somehow the cheese manufacturers are responsible for the fact they can't sell their product in Canada due to gov't regulation. 

2. No matter how you want to slice it, call it a tax or a tariff or whatever floats your boat, at the end of the day the problem exists because of the Canadian government.

3. I don't think I would call it censorship but without a doubt if you believe that we should have access to those services then you have to look to the Canadian government to explain their actions

1. I see your point.  Let's talk about cheese, specifically American cheese. Some cheese did make it in to Canada but was more expensive due to tariffs. You're right we wouldn't blame the manufacturer but we would also not say Canadian government is preventing cheese from coming in. 

2. If you think the problem is that we don't have access to news on Facebook that I agree. But I think I've made the point that we have to look at this as a tariff. The Canadian government also blocks American ads during the super bowl and maybe that's a better parallel.

3. People don't like the ban on the super bowl ads either so I take your point.

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I see your point.  Let's talk about cheese, specifically American cheese. Some cheese did make it in to Canada but was more expensive due to tariffs. You're right we wouldn't blame the manufacturer but we would also not say Canadian government is preventing cheese from coming in. 

Well,  we would probably say they prevented cheese from coming in.  Is the cheese here? No.  Does the manufacturer want it to be here? Yes.  Why isn't it here? the gov't regulation prevents it from being viably sold here. 

And cheese is kind of a bad example because they really DO deny it to make sure our local producers are protected against competition, so it's a little different but lets pretend that's not the case for this discussion. 

But - what we WOULDN'T say is that it was the gov'ts 'censoring cheese'  (it actually is but like i said we'll put a pin in that for now).  Or that the goal is to deny people access to cheese. 

We would correctly say it's a protectionist move that the gov't is taking for various reasons.  And we could then argue if the reasons were good reasons or not. 

But we need to be clear that this situation is definitely 100 percent the canadian gov'ts doing.  We can have a debate whether or not that's a good idea or a bad idea and it's not cut and dry either way, but it's definitely the gov't. 

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you think the problem is that we don't have access to news on Facebook that I agree. But I think I've made the point that we have to look at this as a tariff.

You mean a tariff as opposed to censorship. 

Sure. The news is out there anyway for the most part you can still go to the NP's website and read the news. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

1. ... the gov't regulation prevents it from being viably sold here. 

2. And cheese is kind of a bad example because they really DO deny it to make sure our local producers are protected against competition, so it's a little different but lets pretend that's not the case for this discussion. 

3. But - what we WOULDN'T say is that it was the gov'ts 'censoring cheese'  (it actually is but like i said we'll put a pin in that for now).  Or that the goal is to deny people access to cheese. 

4. We would correctly say it's a protectionist move that the gov't is taking for various reasons.  And we could then argue if the reasons were good reasons or not. 

5. But we need to be clear that this situation is definitely 100 percent the canadian gov'ts doing.  We can have a debate whether or not that's a good idea or a bad idea and it's not cut and dry either way, but it's definitely the gov't. 

6. You mean a tariff as opposed to censorship. 

Sure. The news is out there anyway for the most part you can still go to the NP's website and read the news. 

Reasonable post.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Mostly agree.

6. Yes, this is protectionism more than censoring.  The government doesn't care about the content.

Protectionism was a neoliberal taboo ten years ago, and now thanks to Trump it is seen as the way forward.

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

econdly, of course Facebook can afford to do this. Google is paying, so why not Facebook.

Facebook is totally different than Google.  FB is a social media posting website.  Tens, maybe hundreds of millions of people post comments, links to articles, photos, etc. That is what the social media giant is for.

Google is mainly a search engine.  Maybe there is more to Google than I know about but it appears to be an entirely different thing.  For Facebook to monitor every post or link that someone puts on FB would require a million employees.  If you understand AI a bit, you will know they can't determine whether you are linking to a news article or a video about someone building an ATV.  Everything AI does has to be built into the software by programmers.  They cannot replace humans to monitor the content people post.  There are just too many postings on FB.

I don't think Google has the same kind of social media posting site unless it runs some other sites.

Because AI can't analyze every link people make on FB, it is senseless for the government to say FB must pay for every news item an individual user posts on FB.  They have no way of knowing what is news and what isn't.  FB also does not charge users to post links to articles, etc.   So that is not how they make money from FB.  FB makes money with advertising.  It is not even a news website.  So the government imposition of a fee to post links to news is irrational.  Facebook has not way of determining what is news and what isn't.  It is irrational for the government to be trying to charge FB for posting news.

Edited Wednesday at 03:21 PM by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Facebook is totally different than Google.  FB is a social media posting website.  Tens, maybe hundreds of millions of people post comments, links to articles, photos, etc. That is what the social media giant is for.

Google is mainly a search engine.  Maybe there is to Google than I know about but it appears to be an entirely different thing.  For Facebook to monitor every post or link that someone puts on FB would require a million employees.  If you understand AI a bit, you will know they can't determine whether you are linking to a news article or a video about someone building an ATV.  Everything AI does has to be built into the software by programmers.  They cannot replace humans to monitor the content people post.  There are just too many postings on FB.

I don't think Google has the same kind of social media posting site unless it runs some other sites.

Because AI can't analyze every link people make on FB, it is senseless for the government to say FB must pay for every news item an individual user posts on FB.  They have no way of knowing what is news and what isn't.

Well Google is a lot more.  And the fact is that they make enough money from the clicks to pay from moderation, as I understand.

If course they differentiate news now, they just cast a wide net.

Do you not think that the government should have any control over social media?

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well Google is a lot more.  And the fact is that they make enough money from the clicks to pay from moderation, as I understand.

If course they differentiate news now, they just cast a wide net.

Do you not think that the government should have any control over social media?

It seems you don't understand how Facebook works.   

They do not and can not monitor what is news and what is just information of interest such as man building an ATV.  There is a difference between news articles and youtube videos of people's personal interests or hobbies.  It is ridiculous to think FB can know what every individual user is posting or linking to.

[Nationalist]

To all you Pixie-Dust apologists...Gawd You're Dumb!

Had our Little Potato not had his weekly fembot-fit over Facebook, none of this would have happened.

RIGHT @Michael Hardner?

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 

1. They do not and can not monitor what is news and what is just information of interest such as man building an ATV.  There is a difference between news articles and youtube videos of people's personal interests or hobbies.  It is ridiculous to think FB can know what every individual user is posting or linking to.

1. Well they're trying.  I don't think anything here is about Facebook losing money, just my impression.

[blackbird]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well they're trying.  I don't think anything here is about Facebook losing money, just my impression.

Not saying FB is losing money.  The ordinary Facebook user is the victim here with the government's new Marxist control of social media.  Facebook users are the real victims because they cannot post a lot of links now.  FB has blocked users form posting links such as the one I tried to post about a guy building an ATV.  Presumably because the URL has msn in the link.  It was not a news item but FB still blocked it because they don't and can't examine the actual content of millions of user's links.  Their AI obviously just looks at the URL it is coming from and if it has msn in it, FB blocks it.  That is how the government new legislation is harming FB users.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Not saying FB is losing money.  The ordinary Facebook user is the victim here with the government's new Marxist control of social media.  

There's no evidence they're doing this for anything other than economic reasons.  If in correct, even CdnFox seems to agree.

Google serves news and forms of social contact too.  And they pay up.

Chinese EVs are similarly censored, by your definition.

[ExFlyer]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But the business gets the money.

 

Are you against tariffs in general?  The reasons here are similar as for cars and cheese...

Yes, business is business. Feds tax...you want to give them more money??

Bottom line is it is you that posts the stories and links, not the social media company....and you (Blackbird) are pissed that he/she cannot post LOL

No, this tax on social media is not even close to cheese and cars. Social media is you...not the manufacturer or producer and not protecting Canadian producers and manufacturers.