You’ve got the just of it. Their argument is that meta benefits as the post w/ the the link and preview is content they use in their feed to keep users engaged. Presumably in said feed they’d also insert ads.
This would also apply to any user posting a link to an article, not just the news agencies.
I would hope it’s on the basis of the news sites not actually receiving any user engagement due to users summarizing the article and therefore allowing people to “read” it without reading it.
The other option is they want news companies to have their cake and eat it too. Apparently, that worked out for Australia though—albeit in an asinine and behind-closed-doors sort of way.
I do believe some Canadian industries should be subsidized by private interests because they’re just selling our own resources back to us, and they should pay for the privilege (while still receiving some profits). Telecom, utilities, energy, farms over certain capacities etc.
News Probaby shouldn’t be one. I’m more than happy with government funded news so long as its independent of government and held to a higher standard than “entertainment” like we have with our neighbours to the south. This forces private news to compete with a competent news source, and it’s not like the business model for news has really changed by much, selling ad space next to information, or offering subscriptions is as old as information sharing.
Because most people don’t click, they just read the summary of the article in their feed. They’re claiming that aggregators don’t share revenue from summarized articles.
You’ve got the just of it. Their argument is that meta benefits as the post w/ the the link and preview is content they use in their feed to keep users engaged. Presumably in said feed they’d also insert ads.
This would also apply to any user posting a link to an article, not just the news agencies.
(Not arguing with you, just with the concept of the bill)
Doesn’t the news outlet benefit from the traffic and clicks generated from that user engagement?
What’s the government’s rationale for social media platforms to subsidize media outlets monetarily in addition to driving people to their content?
I would hope it’s on the basis of the news sites not actually receiving any user engagement due to users summarizing the article and therefore allowing people to “read” it without reading it.
The other option is they want news companies to have their cake and eat it too. Apparently, that worked out for Australia though—albeit in an asinine and behind-closed-doors sort of way.
Oh no offense taken, I also don’t get it. Like you said, I think amounts to forcing private companies to subsidize an industry
It’s more about forcing private companies to pay for the use of other private companies work.
I do believe some Canadian industries should be subsidized by private interests because they’re just selling our own resources back to us, and they should pay for the privilege (while still receiving some profits). Telecom, utilities, energy, farms over certain capacities etc.
News Probaby shouldn’t be one. I’m more than happy with government funded news so long as its independent of government and held to a higher standard than “entertainment” like we have with our neighbours to the south. This forces private news to compete with a competent news source, and it’s not like the business model for news has really changed by much, selling ad space next to information, or offering subscriptions is as old as information sharing.
Because most people don’t click, they just read the summary of the article in their feed. They’re claiming that aggregators don’t share revenue from summarized articles.