• lasagna@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So many corporate cock gobblers commenting on this topic.

    Parasites like Meta infiltrated our society, did their damn best to become a monopoly, currently steal from smaller businesses, lost personal data from shitloads of people, makes you their product, and even fueled instability in entire countries. Then people wonder why a government wants to use it to perhaps save a few more lives. It’s not like Meta is a company deserving of goodwill, so are you people getting a cent for this PR work or are you just suckers?

    • persolb@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is a government mandate for one corporation to pay another corporation to share it’s product. This isn’t ‘helping the little guy’ or anything.

      People still have the ability to just go directly to the news site. Or Google. Or the government’s Facebook page. Or the national alert system. And probably lots of other options I don’t know about.

      The law (“you must pay for the news you show unless otherwise agreed”) seems reasonable. As does the response of “well it isn’t worth enough to pay for”.

    • nebs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wonder who should take the blame for being greedy though. The Canadian Bill C-19 was heavily influenced by lobbying from the Canadian news lobby group who even suggested the link charge.

      Canadian news outlets suggest the link fee and then complain about the consequences.

      https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/04/how-did-news-media-canada/

      “In fact, not content with obtaining payments for reproduction of news content, it lobbied for a far broader approach that even includes payment for links or merely “facilitating access” to news content.”