this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2023
135 points (97.9% liked)

Canada

7130 readers
235 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


๐Ÿ Meta


๐Ÿ—บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories


๐Ÿ™๏ธ Cities / Regions


๐Ÿ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


๐Ÿ’ป Universities


๐Ÿ’ต Finance / Shopping


๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ Politics


๐Ÿ Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Honestly, I don't know what the lawmakers expected. The bill is dumb. It'd be perfectly fine to require payment for copying a substantial amount of a new article (eg, if they want to prevent google from offering a public cache that gets around paywalls). But the bill outright requires paying to link to Canadian news sites in search results. That's outright madness.

Y'all can hate google and meta all you want. That's totally fine. I encourage you to use competing search engines (it's bad that Google has a near monopoly). But this bill is a bad bill.

The folks on this site might know about alternatives, but the average person doesn't. When the average person can't find Canadian news sites on Google, they're not going to switch to duck duck go or whatever. They're going to just use a non Canadian site. This bill is going to hurt Canadian news companies and it's disappointing to see people cheering it on because you're happier to see Google and meta hurt than you are sorry to see Canadian news sites hurt...

[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Exactly. Iโ€™m not sure what lawmakers were expecting. Donโ€™t Canadian news sites make money off of ads and traffic to their site? Why would they require special treatment and compensation for merely linking to their news sites and articles?

load more comments (8 replies)