• wahming@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    You seem to have it the wrong way around. It’s the regulations that are forcing Facebook to remove news content.

    • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No regulation is forcing Facebook to remove news content. They’re removing it because they don’t want to pay for having it.

      • wahming@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Stop being pedantic. It was very clear what the effect of the regulations would be. We’ve seen the same scenario play out previously. The media industry decided to push for it anyway, and pikachusurprisedface when it turned out to bite them on the ass.

        • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure, it was predictable and self inflicted.

          But I think saying “Facebook was forced” is factually wrong in a meaningful way, hence to me deserving of correction.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Pedantry is warranted in this case because Facebook was siphoning away millions of dollars of revenue from news outlets by scraping stories and regurgitating them without attribution or proper royalties. I’ve been quite pleased by this legislation in how much it’s allowed second tier news services like the Sun and Straight to actually get a fair share for their reporting.

          • wahming@monyet.cc
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s pretty inaccurate. Like Google, news outlets could set automated policies regarding how much scraping and summarising was allowed. The publishers wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

      • baconisaveg@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s a difference between scraping news organizations, summarizing it, and then presenting it on your site (which is what Google/Meta do, and what the regulation was meant to make them pay for), and having to pay for user shared content.

        Forcing Meta/Google to pay for the first case I don’t have an issue with, the second one though seems rather silly.

        • Rocket@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          which is what Google/Meta do

          No. Meta created Open Graph so that they don’t have to do that. It lets the publications define the summary (among a long list of other attributes). All of the major Canadian publications are using Open Graph.

          If they don’t want to give so much information, they can… stop providing the information. Classic case of management spending too much time in Ottawa and not enough time talking to the workers.

        • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe it’s silly, but that’s beside the point. Facebook is not being forced to remove news, they decided to not pay for it.