I thought they would just take over or replace the mod list. Guess I was wrong

I'm glad the story didn't go the other way with you lighting something on fire

Won't this just lead them to drop Canadian media from their platforms?

I suspect it's nothing more than an overeager web application firewall (WAF) blocking the requests automatically.

This annoys me to no end, especially with quotes.

Have our premiers done anything themselves?

CBC is grasping at straws trying to put the blame on Facebook for the very bill they pushed through, that had very predictable consequences. Canadians news publishers have no one to blame for this but themselves.

The article basically reads as though they're upset for not being paid by Meta during emergencies and sad they can't profit as much off people glued to watching emergencies (it's absolutely not because they're truly concerned for the actual ppl facing the emergency). It's quite tasteless for them to pull the misinformation card when news publishers aren't always known to spread accurate or helpful information -- they're mostly there for the fear mongering. And Meta's response on that front is the correct one: they're not blocking government sites and government sites should be considered the sources of truth and information during emergencies.

That said, unrelated to news link sharing, there's a larger discussion to be had around emergency broadcasts over the internet: should the government create legislation to have an emergency notification tool in place that can be triggered on Canadian websites and websites catering to Canadians (social media included)? Many institutions, including universities, have their own systems for doing exactly this so why can't the government?

DDG which uses Bing to power its results will also have to comply by the same law or drop Canadian news results if they don't want to negotiate and pay.

Tried all the tricks in this thread, but just get 404 or zero results when searching.

Of course it's Manitoba

Sensational news articles like this are also expected in the fallout. Most news companies in Canada lobbied for the change and simply hoped that big players would cave right away. But now that Meta and Alphabet have announced that they'll block news in Canada (a predictable response), news companies are realizing the impact it'll actually have on them and the amount of lossed revenue it'll entail if things don't work out the way the want them to. They're basically crapping their pants and writing up these types of headlines to pressure Meta/Alphabet as a last-ditch effort.

The amendments were passed and enacted before the Australian media code ever received royal assent. Meanwhile Bill C-18 already received royal assent in Canada, so amendments won't be anytime soon. You're right that it can happen, but if the government or our news publishers cared to avoid any fallout, then they would have negotiated on agreements and possible amendments prior to royal assent (which is what Australian news corporations did), not after.

And so as long as a difference exists, we can't expect the Canadian situation to develop in the same way as Australia. And the interim fallout in terms of lost revenue for our own news publishers is actually very significant, despite everyone saying 'good riddance to Meta and Alphabet'.

Une tornade a touché le sol à Ottawa :

https://twitter.com/VanessaDiri/status/1679535862491627521?t=Y4729hHVYby2ffv7lj_z4Q&s=19

https://ephmedia.giphy.com/...

https://twitter.com/lanlin_zhang/status/1679533454520639497?t=3GWUaWUBffez1STS0uR7Dg&s=19

https://twitter.com/...

Got pretty big hail out west

Awesome shot!

Why wouldn't they? Microsoft operates the largest search engine used in Canada after Google, owns LinkedIn which is one of the top 10 social media platforms with a heavy news aggregation focus like Facebook, provides a default news aggregation feed pre-installed on all Windows computers, etc.

By the wording of the bill, there's no reason they can't be labeled as having a "prominent market position" or "a strategic advantage over news businesses". And this applies especially so if Alphabet and Meta recuse themselves from the Canadian news market.

If the spirit of the bill is to get money from big corporations to support Canadian news organizations, then there's no reason not to target Microsoft. And the fact that MS has already been consulted on the bill and released a statement about it strongly suggests they'll be on the list.

I have no clue what you're arguing anymore to be honest, because ultimately it has nothing to do with anything I wrote initially. The article you linked to was written on July 6th and, as the very quote you provided states, "[Alphabet] travaille à « trouver une solution » avec le gouvernement". Yes, it's true Alphabet is continuing to discuss things with the government and that was also included in the link I provided if you bothered to take 2 seconds to read it. It's also true that Alphabet has not yet blocked news as they weigh their options.

As for Meta, yes, you're right that they've chosen not to pursue discussions or negotiations after Bill C-18 received royal assent. This is correct. However, it still has absolutely nothing to do with discussing amendments prior to Bill C-18 receiving royal assent.

I can’t believe the number of people (especially Anglophones) defending the platforms instead of the medias.

À la fin de la journée, une loi stupide demeure une loi stupide. Si tu veux faire la victime et brailler parce qu'une plate-forme de réseau social (que tout le monde déteste de toute façon) décide qu'elle veut retirer les nouvelles plutôt que de payer pour des liens partagés par ses utilisateurs – ou si un jour un moteur de recherche dont le but est d'indexer les pages Web en ligne décide de faire la même chose parce que ça va à l'encontre du fonctionnement du Web, vas-y fort, braille. Ce n'est pas défendre Meta d'affirmer qu'ils suivent la loi comme elle est prescrite. Et ce n'est pas non plus défendre Meta (ou Alphabet ou quiconque) de dire que la loi est stupide, qu'elle pourrait avoir un impact néfaste sur d'autres entreprises nommées par le CRTC sans les mêmes moyens financiers, et que de forcer les entités (entreprises, organismes et, un jour sûrement, les individus) à payer pour le partage ou l'indexage de liens sur internet établit un très mauvais précédent.

There's only one country with even a remotely similar legislation, that being Australia. Facebook got the amendments it wanted before the Australian Code received royal assent.

If you're going to cry foul about how Facebook is following the legislation Canada is putting in place, you'll need to try harder than that.

@EnglishMobster

Thanks for checking. I was searching on mobile and tried on different Lemmy instances, all the different ways detailed in my post above. I wonder if just sharing the link here (on an already federated magazine) helped or if you searching as a user helped get it to show up (I admit I don't have a Lemmy account).

Weird in any case, but glad it's working now, thank you!

I'm happy that clicking on the Kbin logo on mobile brings you back to the home page (as opposed to opening the hamburger menu).