Canada says Google will pay $74 million annually to Canadian news industry under new online law::Canada’s government says it has reached a deal with Google for the company to contribute $100 million Canadian dollars annually to the country’s news industry

  • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Obligatory fuck Facebook.

    But reminder that laws like this would require link aggregator sites like Lemmy (or instance owners more specifically), to pay money simply for hosting links to news sites. Terrible law imo.

    I think it’s reasonable to require fees for rehosting an article or pictures on your web page, but charging just to have a url link is totally antithetical to the structure of the internet. If anything those links drive traffic to news websites, where they are free to host advertisements or require subscriptions.

    Edit: as below this particular law won’t affect lemmy servers. I still disagree with the idea that posting a hyperlink alone to a website should cost money.

    • grte@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The Canadian law in question has specific provisions in it that would pass any lemmy instance by.

      — Companies impacted by the Online News Act must have global annual revenue of $1 billion or more, “operate in a search engine or social-media market distributing and providing access to news content in Canada,” and have 20 million or more Canadian average monthly unique visitors or average monthly active users.

      source (archive)

      That’s literally half the country, by the way.

      There was never any chance this law was going to impact any lemmy instances.

      • there1snospoon@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        The astroturf is strong with these people.

        The only groups affected by this law are the obscenely wealthy. It amounts to whining about having to pay more fair share. There are dozens of ways to see that happen; perhaps this isn’t the most efficient, but you won’t see me crying for Google, Meta, Twitter, or any other social media giant.

      • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        True, thank you for pointing that out. I still disagree with the idea that you should have to pay to link to another web site. If they’re rehosting content from that website, like an article summary or picture, than absolutely. A link alone makes no sense, that’s driving traffic to that website. In any other business you’d be paying for referrals/finder fees for new customers, not the other way around.

        • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yeah, I fully agree. The goal of most websites is to get linked by Google, the argument that Google should then have to pay for giving the websites what they want anyways is weird.

          I also don’t feel like the argument that it’s ok just because it targets wealthy companies changes whether the actual law makes sense or not.