• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Google to block news in Canada over law on paying publishers

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,687
17,314
Here
✟1,493,600.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

OTTAWA, June 29 (Reuters) - Google said on Thursday it plans to block Canadian news on its platform in Canada, joining Facebook in escalating a campaign against a new law requiring payments to local news publishers.

Alphabet-owned (GOOGL.O) Google will remove links to Canadian news from search results and other products in Canada when the law takes effect in about six months.

Facebook-owner Meta Platforms Inc (META.O) made a similar announcement last week after the passage of Bill C-18, or the Online News Act.

Facebook and Google said the proposals were unsustainable for their businesses and for months signaled possibly ending news availability in Canada unless the act was amended.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: zippy2006

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,687
17,314
Here
✟1,493,600.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I'm inclined to side with Google and Facebook on this one.

I think given the the fact that local/regional news publishers are the ones who reap benefits of the reach Google and Meta affords them, demanding that Google/Meta have to pay them every time someone lands on their own site via a Google referrer, or sees one of their news stories in the Google search or linked via Facebook, is unreasonable and creates a bad incentive structure.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,671
3,867
✟303,697.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
"This shows how deeply irresponsible and out of touch" Canada is.

"[Google] had proposed that the displaying of news content, rather than links, be a basis for payment and that only businesses that produce news according to journalistic standards are eligible."
 
Upvote 0

The IbanezerScrooge

I can't believe what I'm hearing...
Sep 1, 2015
3,458
5,855
51
Florida
✟310,393.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm inclined to side with Google and Facebook on this one.

I think given the the fact that local/regional news publishers are the ones who reap benefits of the reach Google and Meta affords them, demanding that Google/Meta have to pay them every time someone lands on their own site via a Google referrer, or sees one of their news stories in the Google search or linked via Facebook, is unreasonable and creates a bad incentive structure.
I'm in agreement with that as well.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,687
17,314
Here
✟1,493,600.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
"and that only businesses that produce news according to journalistic standards are eligible"
This last part mentioned is what I see as the big one and pertains to that "bad incentive structure" I mentioned before.

If the precedent is set that "any time Facebook or Google shows my article (or returns a link to it), I get some money", what's to stop some small time outlet or "independent journalist" from doing the equivalent of basically "spamming out articles" in order to cash in.

Given that framework, what's to stop some local news outlet or independent journalist from padding their wallet by pumping out 30 repetitive articles per day or taking something that's not news worthy, and trying to spin it as a "scoop" and upload it to Facebook and use the tricks of the trade people use to get their content prioritized in the search index.

I could pump out fifty, 1-paragraph articles a day about "why pizza totally rules" and cash in.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0