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

[blackbird]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1. No, you're right but that's not the algorithm's job.   I explained how Facebook can use URLs to block.

 

Yes, Facebook used an URL to block me from posting a video of a guy building an ATV and it said it was "news".

The algorithm appears to block any link with msn in it.  That is the problem.  Not everything from msn is news.  My link about building an ATV from msn was not news.  Facebook is trying to use URLs but obviously it is not working properly.  Not all URLs are news items.

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. Yes, Facebook used an URL to block me from posting a video of a guy building an ATV and it said it was "news".

2. The algorithm appears to block any link with msn in it.  

1. That's Facebook's issue.  Their mistakes in a single instance don't mean the task of identifying news is difficult.

2. No, I'm referring to the algorithm as it prioritizes how much to share content, not whether to block it

Go to Google, it has an entire tab page that separates News from content.

If Meta was compliant, they could count the number of links with the top 20, 50, 100 URLs from News sites.  That would be simple.

[blackbird]

This is just a scheme to tax internet companies and raise more money while at the same time censoring news and depriving Canadians of their free use of the internet.

[impartialobserver]

As someone who does programming for a living.. this is most likely just a mistake but one that would take some serious attention to detail to resolve. It is a mistake so lets get that out in the open. Were you uploading a video that you had saved on a PC.. or did it have a URL attached to it?

[blackbird]

47 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

As someone who does programming for a living.. this is most likely just a mistake but one that would take some serious attention to detail to resolve. It is a mistake so lets get that out in the open. Were you uploading a video that you had saved on a PC.. or did it have a URL attached to it?

The link is in the OP.  Yes, if you click on the link, you will see the URL or just click on it here.

Perhaps you can see something in the URL that shows why it was blocked from being posted on Facebook.

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

Could it be everything from msn.com is being blocked by FB?  If so, that is a very broad move by FB.

Will see it I can find something else on msn.com and try to post it on FB to see if is blocked too.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

As someone who does programming for a living.. this is most likely just a mistake but one that would take some serious attention to detail to resolve. It is a mistake so lets get that out in the open. Were you uploading a video that you had saved on a PC.. or did it have a URL attached to it?

Guess what?    I just tried to post a video with some interesting fishing scenes on it and Facebook blocked it and said this:

"In response to Canadian government legislation, news content can’t be shared."

So it appears any videos from msn are being blocked by Facebook.

10 Fishing Videos Caught On Camera | Watch (msn.com)

Edited July 5, 2024 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

This is just a scheme to tax internet companies and raise more money while at the same time censoring news and depriving Canadians of their free use of the internet.

We already posted the revenues go 100% to media companies.  

[blackbird]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

We already posted the revenues go 100% to media companies.  

So is it a payoff to liberal-friendly media companies?  

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

So is it a payoff to liberal-friendly media companies?  

No, most media outlets aren't Liberal friendly.

[CdnFox]

43 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

We already posted the revenues go 100% to media companies.  

And Are taxed.

You missed that Presumably.

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And Are taxed.

You missed that Presumably.

It's an odd angle to say that the government wants tax revenue out of a plan that saves jobs.

When Canada bought the oil pipeline they were saving Canadian jobs too.

But, if you think that the media is dead/dying and the jobs should just be allowed to go I suppose your overall assessment of the situation is fair.

Some think that way about energy jobs too, by the way.  They think that restructuring is required, meaning layoffs.  I don't agree with that, but maybe you do.

Poilievre is going to shut down the CBC with almost 10K FTEs and contractors.  There are tens of thousands of others in journalism and communication working in media.  So maybe he thinks that the industry should be allowed to sink or swim on its own.

Again, these are valid takes.  I just think that we have to acknowledge that it's chiefly an economics question.

 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's an odd angle to say that the government wants tax revenue out of a plan that saves jobs.

 

That wouldn't be a very odd angle at all, in fact its been mentioned with many other gov't bailouts, programs etc. And that's not invalid, if your argument is that the businesses are inappropriately losing revenues because of 'foreign' activity then it's just as valid to say the gov't is and why would that be any MORE ok?

However - i didn't propose anything of the sort, i simply corrected the idea that none of the money will go to the gov't.  It does, in the form of taxes both corporate and personal and otherwise. I had no intent to propose anything beyond that simple correction. 

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

When Canada bought the oil pipeline they were saving Canadian jobs too.

and?

Quote

But, if you think that the media is dead/dying and the jobs should just be allowed to go I suppose your overall assessment of the situation is fair.

I don't recall making that statement. 

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Some think that way about energy jobs too, by the way.  They think that restructuring is required, meaning layoffs.  I don't agree with that, but maybe you do.

You're taking something i didn't say and stretching it to apply to other things that i also didn't say  

Who knows where that ends - I think i'll stop you there before i wind up supporting nazi anti-abortion suicide gerbils or something  

You've clearly taken this a bit personally, and perhaps i needed to word it differently, but my comment was meant to be nothing more than "here's a correction to what you said", not "here's a correction because you're stupid" or "here's a correction because i think saving jobs is bad" or anything like that.  Just pointing out for the sake of clarity that the gov't does have a financial stake in the game. 

As far as things like the pipeline and media and gov't interference goes,  generally speaking (since you asked so nicely  )  I believe that industries that cannot survive on their own should be allowed to either perish or evolve naturally. And if a business that WOULD have flourished naturally is being held back because of gov't interference then it may be appropriate for the gov't to take some action. 

So - in the case of the pipeline i would say that's something that was viable 'naturally' and had somewhat unnatural blockages from the gov't of bc and other parties, so maybe that's approprate (tho that went overboard and cost a bundle)

In the case of alberta's transition - the gov't is forcing  a healthy market to die unnatually and oppressing it for political reasons.  I think that's horrible and wrong to begin with, but for the gov't to do something there might well be appropriate. OR if they made a demand requiring expensive changes for political reasons - helping with that might be appropriate 

As far as the media situation goes, it's a little different. What we're talking about here is a gov't tariff. This is protectionism, not just a hand out.  I don't like protectionism as a rule but in some cases an argument can be made for it. We allow protectionism in our food industry for example to ensure we retain the ability to produce our own food. That may be a valid argument. 

I don't feel this tarrif is the right answer.  And i feel that the media industry is not evolving and that we shouldn't prop it up overmuch if they're not willing to make changes. But i'm not entirely against it either.  I don't feel it's evil or the like.