Comments
MajorHowes t1_itdrex7 wrote
Who looks to Facebook for news anyway?
Adorable-Slip2260 t1_itds4na wrote
LMAO they should respond by blocking that collection of giant douche bags who work for Facebook, and the products douche bags who give them money buy operation and sale in Canada.
Crack_uv_N0on t1_itdskvw wrote
So Meta is throwing a hissy fit.
It should have done the adult thing and asked to be included, as Google did.
It can negotiate with news outlets, just as it did after the Australian law took effect.
BEAVER_ATTACKS t1_itdsm2r wrote
Old people and dumb people. Humanity is dumb and overworked and uneducated in recognizing credible sources, and the predators that own the world prey on them.
SnooHesitations8849 t1_itdsuiw wrote
Seems like Suckerberg never learns. If he had made a deal with Apple 5 years ago, he would not in this shithole
[deleted] t1_itdsxv6 wrote
[removed]
Competitive-Bell9882 t1_itdtx4u wrote
The more moderate version of people who get their news from TikTok.
HeadStarboard t1_itdu9am wrote
Facebook needs to be broken up. Govt oversight asleep at wheel on this.
thisistheredditapp t1_itduaju wrote
Right. Like anything happens in Canada.
Incubus_Priest t1_itduq79 wrote
i dont think thats it entirely. as weve seen with the mass adoption of the internet legacy media tries to claw its fingers into every social media platform wether it gets views/clicks or not. i mean look at any site that allows you to see actual views/clicks and theirs tons of news outlet posts/vids/streams etc with hilariously tiny numbers. youtube is full of official cnn/msnbc/fox etc videos with views in the hundreds, not hundreds of thousands, hundreds. yet they still crank out content
Incubus_Priest t1_itduxhp wrote
1st world govts have zero interest in breaking up big business and hasnt cared in decades. their was a vague attempt to break up microsoft by the usa, they failed and said yolo.
systemfrown t1_itduyow wrote
Sounds like more of a gift than a threat.
SomeDudeNamedMark t1_itdv7m8 wrote
Imagine Meta thinking people would consider this a BAD thing 😂
xtremeyou t1_itdvmv1 wrote
I wouldn't say dumb but uninformed. Also I'd say alot of this is just pure ignorance and not wanting to feel stupid learning something new/being set in old ways.
Steamroller2016 t1_itdw551 wrote
Who cares?
[deleted] t1_itdwk0b wrote
[removed]
maydarnothing t1_itdx2mj wrote
are we supposed to feel sorry?
ItchyK t1_itdxsdv wrote
Honestly, I think it's more than people would like to admit. Everyone will overlook the fact that they looked at that one article on Facebook and probably start quoting it as fact. But then they assume The other people are just using it more. That one article wasn't a big deal to them, But that is essentially how the whole monster works.
lukaskywalker t1_itdxzdr wrote
Oh. No. Anyway
NeuroticKnight t1_itdxzfb wrote
Yes, because the arrangement would stiffle small and independent news creators, if facebook can only allow sharing of listed partners. Same happened with google.
DreadPirate777 t1_itdy09v wrote
In today’s news, Facebook shoots its other foot. Again.
NeuroticKnight t1_itdy3w2 wrote
or more like only news from FB partners are there. Oh you want to share news from Jacobin, sorry, not a partner, here is an article from fox news instead.
The_Real_BenFranklin t1_itdy6sw wrote
People don’t “look” for news there, but they passively consume their news from Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/wherever.
PsychologicalPay6049 t1_itdygwh wrote
Oh no! Where will my mom get her right-leaning largely inaccurate fear mongering clickbait from if they do it?
0000alex0000 t1_itdyzq7 wrote
Facebook is like Russia. Full of empty threats. Like who the fuck goes to Facebook for news?
ohjoyousones t1_itdzi0r wrote
Great. They have no business allowing misinformation posts pretending to be legitimate News anyway.
AbbreviationsDue7121 t1_itdzk4p wrote
Sounds like a win for Canada
Small_Frosting_758 t1_itdzngm wrote
Meta fucking sucks
gizamo t1_itdzqn1 wrote
The people who used to look to Fox News....before Fox wasn't alt-right enough for them anymore. Not that Fox didn't get more alt-right, tho.
kymotsujason t1_ite1dc1 wrote
That might actually be one of the best things Meta does this year.
wrath_of_bong902 t1_ite1dm0 wrote
Good. Then more people might stop using it.
[deleted] t1_ite1iag wrote
[deleted]
xtremeyou t1_ite1uiw wrote
Thanks for pointing that out lmao
DannyD12E t1_ite1zdr wrote
Amazon first though
No_Introduction7307 t1_ite2jec wrote
“news” that’s hilarious
anthonykantara t1_ite3jry wrote
Most independent outlets in Canada are speaking out against this law.
I run a media company, we used social media like Facebook to give us a fighting chance against the heavily funded traditional outlets.
This cuts off one of our main traffic sources which in turn cuts off our funding.
ChineseAPTsEatBabies t1_ite3lo1 wrote
Okay? It’s polluted with fake shit anyway
usgrant7977 t1_ite3uck wrote
Dystopian cyberpunk world here we come. Mega corps publicly flouting the laws of a nation.
Ialwayslie005 t1_ite4w9m wrote
Can they block news content in the US too? ...Please?
ThunderPigGaming t1_ite5aqg wrote
If you operate a small hyperlocal news outlet you had better develop an app pronto. One with a forum if possible.
April_Fabb t1_ite7kih wrote
Why isn't Meta/Facebook treated like a criminal organisation?
MoreGaghPlease t1_ite8z3m wrote
Agree.
Now what do you think will happen when outlets like CBC and the Toronto Star become financially dependent on Meta, as C-18 proposes?
What do you think will happen when the big guys like Postmedia and Quebecor sign side-deals with Meta for a lower click rate than the regulated amount (C-18 specifically allows for this), making their content cheaper to for Meta than small independents?
OddballDensity t1_ite90l3 wrote
I wish they would block it in the us
jBlairTech t1_itebb60 wrote
Oh, no- more pictures and gifs of cute cats and dogs riding skateboards! The horror!
/s, obviously. Less news is good news.
The420Turtle t1_itebtbk wrote
dont threaten me with a good time
zookr2000 t1_itefqix wrote
FB is worse than Wikipedia
TibiaKing t1_itegb20 wrote
This is good for Canada. Meta applications not providing news (which by now is well understood most of what it provides is misinformation) is objectively favourable than having them provide it.
thickener t1_iteh8yx wrote
Same as it ever was
tokenblacxx t1_iteh9rq wrote
This is a good thing, right?
spidereater t1_iteiil8 wrote
Exactly the people that shouldn’t be.
spidereater t1_iteilo9 wrote
And then assume they are well informed.
Rook22Ti t1_iteiw6t wrote
Incredibly succinct description of our current predicament.
murdering_time t1_itej7ha wrote
"Dont threaten me with a good time!"
DevAnalyzeOperate t1_itejt7u wrote
Nobody cares lol and while people hate this legislation in general, literally nobody could give less of a fuck about a meta boycott.
If anything this is probably a political win for the people pushing the legislation. I mean that sincerely, I don't think Meta really understands how it's perceived. If I were in Meta's shoes I would lay it on thick with the astroturfing, I wouldn't be publicly opposed lol.
Un_Nationalist3489 t1_itek3as wrote
There are lots of countries outside of the developed world who use facebook as its cheaper and more available than other alternatives. That does not constitute “dumb”.
WhenImTryingToHide t1_itek9qg wrote
Why does it seem like everywhere else in the world is awake to the damage social media companies are causing and they're taking steps to fix it?
rushmc1 t1_itekf18 wrote
No, at this point its more dumb. There's been plenty of time for people to adapt now (decades).
BEAVER_ATTACKS t1_iteliyk wrote
Anyone who uses facebook is dumb. That's the way it is. We existed just fine without its superficial connectiveness. We don't need an alternative, it's built into our dna.
ugottabekiddingmee t1_itemzn7 wrote
I get dumb but why old? What does that have to do with it? That's like saying it only fools Germans. It makes no sense. The majority of people that surround me are over 40 and half are over 50. Only a couple are on Facebook because it's a cesspool. I'm wondering where you draw your conclusions from?
xtremeyou t1_itenkam wrote
The fact you think that either means you're stupid, or you're so close minded and just as bad as they're
fusionbond t1_itensqq wrote
Way, way too many people
mybadroommate t1_itephii wrote
FUCKING DO IT.
RaccoonEnthuiast t1_itepjhn wrote
Good ? How is that a negative lmao
RedNotch t1_itepuyb wrote
You’d normally think that right? But honestly with news leaving it would mean misinformation would take their place and have that much more space to fester in.
NeuroticKnight t1_itepwyx wrote
I know FB bad circlejerk is common these days.
But link taxes would end open internet.
Its cute when FB or Google needs to pay for every link.
What happens when duckduckgo is asked, or other smaller platforms.
boobearybear t1_iteqw2e wrote
Oh no! Anyway…
FarceMultiplier t1_itesuzj wrote
Nothing of value was lost.
[deleted] t1_itetjs1 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iteu259 wrote
This is very true, also, people are so misinformed these days. People tend to gravitate toward an "echo chamber" that keeps feeding them, their own ideological views, this then in turn, prevents them from growing, and expanding, their consciousness.
Note: I'm not pointing fingers at any specific outlet, or ideological view, I'm just saying this in a broad spectrum.
semitope t1_itevzl4 wrote
Always seemed weird because it is a bit of free advertising for the news outlets. If they host the news rather than linking to it, then sure. But it's very strange to charge a search engine or social media platform for getting attention. Why just news? why not all the other sites people find through these platforms?
I'm not sure what FB was doing though. I have never seen a news tab.
UrbanGhost114 t1_itf0qf2 wrote
Sooo win - win?
DevelopmentAny543 t1_itf51sq wrote
Go f yourself Meta.
cyclingthroughlife t1_itf5m76 wrote
So when can this happen in the US?
Insterstellar t1_itf6jmc wrote
Once they start blocking news they will probably also block some non-news items too because their algorithm mis-identified it as news.
bak2redit t1_itf83ls wrote
Ok m confused about these laws, is Facebook needing to pay for links to news outlets posted by it's users?
Doesn't that already financially benefit the news outlets due to their own ads being seen when someone clicks the link? Isn't this like double dipping?
Icy_Mouse_313 t1_itf86cc wrote
Yeah, when they did it in Australia, Facebook blocked some emergency hotline during an emergency. Facebook looked pretty shit when it happened
Street_Ad_863 t1_itf9e0t wrote
Who cares ?
TheSeansei t1_itfbgzq wrote
Where have you been for like the last seven years? People getting their news from Facebook has caused a lot of problems related to democracy in the US.
[deleted] t1_itfdzic wrote
[removed]
chris_p_bacon1 t1_itffir7 wrote
Do it I dare you.
Millon1000 t1_itffy71 wrote
Governments everywhere are sinking their claws in the internet and people don't have the foresight so see why that's a bad thing.
Prestigious_Cold_756 t1_itfgtg0 wrote
So THATS how you make facebook stop spreading misinformation! Every country take note!
dshdhjsdhjd t1_itfh7tn wrote
interesting...
But, what kind of independent outlet?
If it's a qanon type, well????
Prestigious_Cold_756 t1_itfh9w9 wrote
He probably meant that it’s mostly old people that are still using Facebook. It’s the website where you go to see posts from your parents. Young people don’t really hang out there anymore.
Crack_uv_N0on t1_itfhvtw wrote
The referenced Australia law, which the Canadian law mimics,requires paying the news sources a fee. What FB, Google, et al are doing contributes to a loss of revenue from advertisers. Having to click on a link, which is voluntary, is not the same as having ads staring the readers in the face. If it was, you would not be seeing sources requiring a subscription, some trying to entice with a limited number of freebies, others to read even one. Printed editions have demonstrably thinner because of this revenue loss. In the meantime, FB, Google, etc. are benefitting from others’ labors without compensating. This did not begin with FB and Google..They have made it worse.
ctimmermans t1_itficmz wrote
You are not independent if you require Facebook for traffic and making ends meet. That makes you dependent. On Facebook.
[deleted] t1_itfixlp wrote
[deleted]
Rangirocks99 t1_itfm7kr wrote
Lucky Canada. Can Australia be next and maybe ban Facebook in total
anthonykantara t1_itfnhl0 wrote
That’s not what independent means. It has nothing to do with source of traffic.
How do you think digital media outlets get their traffic? TV or newspaper stands?
anthonykantara t1_itfnlwc wrote
In our country independent means not owned or affiliated with any political party or politician. 80% of outlets here are linked to a political entity.
r3zza92 t1_itfqm89 wrote
Same thing happened in aus. The big guys got deals the small guys got fucked.
MrMarklar t1_itfrp82 wrote
Right? They also depend on their electricity provider, internet service provider, and also depend on breathable air, drinking water and nutrition
Independent journalism is truly dead
ctimmermans t1_itfrrnb wrote
It has everything to do with dependence. If you are dependent on 1 traffic source you tend to cater to that traffic source, thus losing your independence.
ctimmermans t1_itfrtqe wrote
Yes, but they can easily switch providers or get the water elsewhere and transport it to the office. Apparently with Facebook that’s not an option
mascachopo t1_itfryuu wrote
Google has also done this before, eventually they had to agree on doing what the institutions request them to do as it’s logic.
MrMarklar t1_itfsj5k wrote
They want to spread their independent journalistic work through a platform that reaches the most people. It doesn't make it any less independent.
Let's say facebook said you can't write about X or you always have to meantion Y in your articles in order to be allowed on their platform. If they complied, then they would cease to be independent. But that's not the case here, facebook is just a means to reach an audience for their independent news outlet without any sort of influence being enforced by Meta on their work.
It's not a hard concept to grasp.
ctimmermans t1_itfspml wrote
I understand the concept. I’m just saying it has consequences (especially longer term) which are not in their favor.
Like being dependent on Facebook.
BrokeMacMountain t1_itfsxot wrote
im fine with this. In return, we should ban facebook / meta and all its services.
MrMarklar t1_itftb9e wrote
You are using the word "dependent" and "independence" in their literal sense, in a completely different context.
"The reach of an independent media outlet depends on a free platform." is not a contradictory sentence, but you are trying to make it seem like it is, and that's dishonest.
​
>you tend to cater
That's a very safe way to form a baseless personal opinion.
ctimmermans t1_itftcw9 wrote
It’s not free in a literal sense.
MrMarklar t1_itfukwu wrote
Enlighten me
yut7 t1_itfyksj wrote
Facebook no way stops them from disseminating their context outside of facebook.
They are free to open TV channel, YouTube channel, start their newspaper, start magazine, build own website and thousand other things.
Facebook is a successful platform, one of most successful ones in entire human history.
texasspacejoey t1_itfzs67 wrote
>People don’t “look” for news there,
Are you joking? Studies show that more people use tiktoc as a search engine than Google now. Ofcourse people look for news on Facebook....
fleeting_FOX t1_itg0a69 wrote
Great, we never needed Facebook to provide news to Canadians.
Morty_A2666 t1_itg0dci wrote
What kind of anti-social company would use News access as hostage... oh wait it's Facebook.
Tidalwave-1103 t1_itg1fu5 wrote
Absolutely, no more outlets for information other than what the government can control. Oh wait, that means Reddit too huh? Hmmmm
Acherstrom t1_itg3c1a wrote
Promises promises. Meta can go and get f’d.
beflacktor t1_itg3zrj wrote
yay! u mean I can actually see my friends posts now?
beflacktor t1_itg40mb wrote
oh wait sponsored crap..nvm
anthonykantara t1_itg5hf5 wrote
That’s literally it. Facebook rather sit down with the main few than sit with thousands of smaller ones.
chitownadmin t1_itg6e8v wrote
I'm so glad I got rid of all of them. I am free!!!
r3zza92 t1_itg7zkc wrote
Facebook threatened to pull news for everyone same as they’re doing in Canada. Googles the one who caved which forced Facebook to follow suit. It’s all Fucking Murdochs fault though, well here it is anyway.
JerryNicklebag t1_itg9vnc wrote
Canada should just block Facebook and get it over with
rushmc1 t1_itgd44w wrote
Swing and a miss. LOL
bak2redit t1_itgdbst wrote
Maybe instead making laws to protect depreciating industries, those industries should be forced to evolve their business models.
Policy like this slow down progress.
cgernaat119 t1_itgemw5 wrote
Promise? I’m calling my senator as we speak to draft this legislation here.
anti-torque t1_itgfryx wrote
Oh no... whatever will Canada do?
anti-torque t1_itgg5yb wrote
It's not a hard concept.
But when the execution lines you up next to an ad for pizzagate, what was that concept, again?
MrMarklar t1_itgisiq wrote
Sorry, but I don't get your point (no offense). I think you're saying good articles and shitty articles exist side by side on the same platform, but I don't know what you are implying with this. It doesn't make the aforementioned independant news sites any more corrupt or less valuable (make them even more so)
anti-torque t1_itgk1rk wrote
The platform they choose delegitimizes their own content, due to association.
I know I would likely never go to a fb link for news. I have issues going to small businesses who can't figure out how to make a wordpress page, leaving it up to fb and yelp to tell me who they are.
MrMarklar t1_itglkxr wrote
I don't think OP means they have their whole business on Facebook. It's just a means to share their articles. All serious businesses that depend on online engagement have pages on Facebook and other social media that point to their websites, it's just a nobrainer.
While I don't browse facebook at all, lots of people still do.
What's the "proper" way to grow your business online, astrosurfing on reddit?
Poop_Noodl3 t1_itgm6r5 wrote
The people least likely to interpret it correctly.
anti-torque t1_itgml4w wrote
lol... it's valid to direct traffic away from fb, I guess.
There are a lot of local businesses who do only have these fb profiles as their business page. It's pretty annoying going from an interwebs experience where I'm just cruising along, to this fb page that tells me nothing, except what a neat pumpikin carving some kids did today... at this restaurant that has no known menu online.
throwawayqw123456 t1_itgqm2z wrote
The US backs down to every single one of these threats. Don't be like the US Canada
Hungry-Lion1575 t1_itgsvf9 wrote
No…please…don’t
Allusionator t1_itgw31n wrote
Nobody needs media that isn’t regional. The news business was a mistake, having people worry about issues they can only know the first thing about that are thousands of miles away is to our collective detriment.
No_Assist2955 t1_ith6ixg wrote
Getting your news from Face Book is suspect anyway. This doesn't sound like a bad thing.
Killself98 t1_ithr9ii wrote
Oh nooo. Anyway…
Syphor t1_iti4h19 wrote
More than you'd think, unfortunately. Tons of people share whatever random shit their friends share without any more thinking aside from the "if my friend shared it it must be true" thing. I've seen people insist up and down that something can't be happening because otherwise it would be plastered across their facebook feeds - as they also insist things are happening because it is. Like "voting fraud is a huge problem!" ... doesn't matter what the real numbers are, they see it shared and re-shared therefore it is a big issue.I see the same sort of confirmation bias show up with other reporting, though. Someone gets abducted, it's big news, for good reason. But in a country the size of the USA, there's bound to be a few happenings here and there - I see people see this reporting and instead of "Well, we had two in the country in about three months, and they were both in high-crime areas far away from me" it becomes "everyone is out to abduct everybody!" with paranoia to match.
As a species, we seem to be ridiculously bad at actual statistics. >.> (Better schooling on actually thinking about it would help, though)
[deleted] t1_iti7ulv wrote
[removed]
knockingatthegate t1_itj0kv8 wrote
For “successful” read “exploitative” and “counterproductive to the aims of a healthy and sustainable civil society.”
ultraj92 t1_itdpx82 wrote
The faster news is no longer on Facebook, the better.