this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
46 points (81.9% liked)

Canada

7236 readers
431 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I hit my first instance of Meta blocking Canadian news content.

Rachael sent me a story from #CBCVancouver via Instagram messages.

The thumbnail is visible in messages (1), but when I click, I get the restricted message (2)

I wasn’t following the CBCVancouver account, and when I search for and visit the profile, I get a different message (3)

I guess Rachael hasn’t had this rolled out to her account yet.

Remember, there are no good guys in this #BillC18 debacle.

@canada

all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Remember, there are no good guys in this #BillC18 debacle.

We disagree on this point, I think the news orgs are the good guys.

Why? Because groups like Meta are profiting from scaping the site without compensation. It's not like Meta is simply showing the headline and thumbnail, they are showing some of the content from the article itself.

Meta's not giving free promotion, they are profiting off of the content of others.

Edit: it looks like the information that Facebook shows is consensual via "Open Graph"

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The bill penalizes Meta even if they link but do zero scraping. Regardless though, news organizations can breathe a sigh of relief as Meta is terminating the totally one-sided relationship where only Meta benefited at news organizations' expense.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

Now if only more people would terminate their relationship with Meta and move to social media services where individuals have a say in how things are shared and monetized.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

they are showing some of the content from the article itself.

They are showing the content found in the og:description meta tag, you mean. The "og" bit stands for Open Graph, which is a protocol developed by Facebook so that news sites can define the content they want Facebook to show.

If news sites don't want Facebook to display this information, they could stop providing it via Open Graph. Again, Open Graph was created exactly to give publishers control over what Facebook shows when linking to their resource. A quick check of the major sites in Canada reveals that Open Graph use is omnipresent and that they are quite welcoming of Facebook using their work.

Funny, that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I wasn't aware of Open Graph, thanks for bringing it up

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How do you feel about Lemmy bots that summarize articles in the comments?

[–] Kecessa 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Issue is the same for the media but there's no advertising revenue for the social media platform, in the end it's still shitty for the content producers.

There's no "gotcha" there.

[–] Kecessa 5 points 1 year ago

The real issue is how social media intentionally changed the way we consume that content. Attention span has drastically went down since Facebook released and time spent on websites that aren't Facebook as well. In the end Meta gets the advertising money and people who click to check the articles don't stick around long enough to be profitable.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

We disagree on this point, I think the news orgs are the good guys.

Facebook brings traffic to these sites. News does not bring traffic to Facebook. There's only one side profiting from sites like Facebook sending them traffic and it isn't Facebook. There's a reason why most (I want to say all, but I can't swear to that) countries that pulled similar moves weren't just OK with Facebook and Google just not serving news. They know they get their traffic from social media sites now, they just also want to be paid on top of that for some reason.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All news sites can be accessed directly without facebook. I quit both twitter and facebook but I never stopped reading the news.

[–] Angry_Maple 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I think this is a nuanced situation. On one hand, the government let this slide for a long time, and too many people became reliant on Facebook for their news. I believe it's very important for people to have the ability to be informed on the world around them. We should be spreading awareness about these things for people who apparently forgot.

On the other hand, it's Facebook. Facebook is also not exactly known for being unbaised or truthful. Provably false things have no business being passed off as news, regardless of what side of the coin you're on. Information is power. We deserve the truth.

We can still use news websites, news apps, FOSS sites like lemmy, the newspaper, watch the news on TV stations, etc. Why are so many people acting like this is the end of all free information? It it really that difficult for people to find another source? I can almost guarantee that you can list 4 or 5 news outlets from the top of your head. If you visit their pages, they will still get their ad revenue. They never got that revenue before because of Facebook.

It's also another situation where people expect other people's labour for free. It's becoming grating. Why are we defending a billion dollar company expecting this from small local companies? Journalists have to eat, too. If it was an easy, time-relaxed job, everyone would be a journalist. It's almost irritating that so many people expect them to permanently lose out on their hard earned money for the sake of saving people the effort of a few different clicks.

Where is any of this anger or frustration towards Meta, the billion dollar company that refuses to pay for these articles? Meta could have negotiated, but decided to just shut it down instead. Why are we cheering on a profiteering company from the US over our own local news sources?

Some people will argue "they'll get less clicks now", but I'd argue that many of those clicks just sent people through an amp-website that mainly benefitted Meta. I'm kind of suprised to see these posts on a FOSS- heavy community, to be honest. I though not having one corporate overlord was kind of the whole point.

[–] Angry_Maple 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I would honestly recommend for anyone in another country to also use another source for news. Think about it, what would you do if Facebook stopped it all tomorrow, or shut down entirely? Would you still have access to information about the world around you to the extent that you do now?

Should you trust Facebook that much?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

The big picture might be nuanced, but link taxes aren't. They're a ridiculous way to try and solve a problem.

Would it be fair to charge a phonebook for listing the mailing address of a business/person? No. Mailing addresses are just bits of information that describe where to find something. Same with links.

If a business wants to make money from people going to their physical location, they stop you at the door and ask for a ticket. They don't go after phonebooks for telling people where they're located.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@boris @canada

What I find especially amusing is that Facebook is blocking The Beaverton. Which says all sorts of uncomfortable things about their ability to discern between journalism and not-journalism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Facebook is blocking news, not journalism specifically.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

@EhForumUser @wrw

But The Beaverton isn't "news" either, it's literally fiction. If The Beaverton is "news", then so is some fanfiction blog with ads on it. So is every web comic.

Ultimately, it's really just that FB/Meta don't want to pay people for content. They want to get paid.

Categories like "journalism" or "news" are just BS terms used to cover what they're doing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The Beaverton is mostly based on the news, so one can glean what is news from that fiction.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Every article shared by The Beaverton is blocked on my feed now, which I think is hilarious.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

go to https://translate.google.ca/?sl=auto&tl=en&op=websites

put in the url and translate from english to english

put that url in fb

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is this an image album?

It only displays one image (presumably the first one?) on Jerboa. If not for the (1)/(2)/(3) I'd have no idea.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

@Darkassassin07 it’s a post from Mastodon cross-posted into Lemmy. Only the first image got captured.

You can see the original post here with all three images https://cosocial.ca/@boris/110851857883747625