Do media aggregators have a duty to provide links to public news sources in emergencies?
Do media aggregators have a duty to provide links to public news sources in emergencies?
The NWT government and city of Yellowknife are describing in tweets, Instagram messages etc. how to search key evacuation information on CPAC and CBC. The broadcast carriers have a duty to carry emergency information, but Meta and X are blocking links.
While internet access is reportedly limited in Yellowknife, residents are finding this a barrier to getting current and accurate information. Even links to CBC radio are blocked.
You're viewing a single thread.
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?
Facebook's response was petulant and childish. This is not Canada's fault any more than it was the fault of other countries who enacted the same regs.
Oh. You didn't know there were others?
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.
The legislation isn't even in place yet, and FB are acting like Trudeau just nut punched Zuckerburg.
FB didn't want to talk. If they did, they would say they are in talks.
What FB wanted, was to be a bully and have the law repealed. Not have it adjusted.
Please stop rehashing the same dead argument over and over and whining about Facebook being a bully when they're very clearly following the terms of the legislation and this outcome was very clearly predictable. News publishers are not victims of bullying, they're victims of their own legislation. And no Meta never once asked for the bill to be dropped, they expressed concerns around wording and requested some amendments; so did Alphabet. Ask yourself why Meta is fine paying news organizations in Australia but not Canada.
Further, as others have already pointed out in this thread and in others on this topic, the bill has received royal assent. The only next step is the Coming into force, which will happen 180 days after that. So whether Meta pulls news now or in 180 days really doesn't matter: the effects, the impacts and the results will be the same. Others have also given the extreme example that if a country that had no legislation around murder were to pass a bill making murder illegal, you wouldn't run around murdering as many people as possible until that act came into force. It's the same idea here.
Keep also in mind that the Online News Act grants the CRTC the ability to name any company it wants at any point as a "digital news intermediary". So this act could have far reaching consequences on much more than Meta and Alphabet in the long term. And it's very likely that any other platform they name will also drop Canadian news for the simple reason that Canadian News needs social media, but the reverse isn't true at all.
They actually refused to go to the table and negotiate, contrary to Alphabet, which is why they're treated differently.
You're misunderstanding the reporting on that. Articles like this state that Meta is not negotiating, but what this actually means is "Meta is not negotiating contracts with hundreds of Canadian news publishers".
Three takeaways:
- These negotiations have nothing to do with discussing the terms and wording of Bill C-18 prior to its royal assent;
- These articles are all published after Bill C-18 received royal assent;
- Meta isn't required to enter negotiations until (a) the Online News Act comes into force, and (b) the CRTC explicitely names Meta as a "digital news intermediary" per the terms of the Online News Act. (Not that they intend to either way, at least for the time being.)
As for discussing the terms of Bill C-18 prior to its royal assent, both Meta and Alphabet have equally and, in both Meta's case and Alphabet's case, publicly shared their concerns, feedback and recommendations on the Bill. No amendments to the legislation were ever made.
The only reason Meta is getting more flack from Canadian News is because they acted now, while the topic is hot, whereas Alphabet will act later. Articles like the one OP linked to can't be used to villify Alphabet because they're not yet blocking news.
No, you're the one who's misinterpreting what's going on. Alphabet sent people to find common ground with the Canadian government by negotiating with them directly, Meta refused to do so, they shared their concerns publicly and that was it, they didn't budge and said they wanted to make an example of Canada.
Le ministre a précisé qu’Alphabet n’est pas touchée par cette annonce, puisque la société mère du moteur de recherche Google travaille à « trouver une solution » avec le gouvernement.I can't believe the number of people (especially Anglophones) defending the platforms instead of the medias.
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.
Forcer les compagnies à payer pour le travail des gens qui leur font réaliser des profits sera toujours une bonne chose.