Canada’s Heritage Minister redoubled her calls for Meta to end its ban on Canadian news content on Facebook and Instagram on Saturday as thousands of Canadians continued their rush to escape wildfires ravaging British Columbia and the Northwest Territories.

  • TheAgeOfSuperboredom@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Are they not sending out emergency messages via the cell network? Is it not on local news and the radio? Doesn’t YouTube have the ability to inject regional advertising? Are they not even putting up road signs mentioning the evacuation?

    I don’t get how it’s Facebook’s problem when not everyone has a Facebook account and there are many other (better) avenues.

    Maybe I’m missing something about the infrastructure in more remote areas?

    • Anonymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      These are the real questions that need to be asked. Using a social media platform from a company based in another country as your country’s emergency news outlet is a big problem. Citizens using social media for news is another.

  • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Canadian government required that Facebook pay to link to news when they passed the Online News Act. Are they walking that back now? Or are they offering to pay those fees?

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Of course not, it’s clearly Meta’s fault that Meta is obeying that law. Why would the negative consequences of that law be the fault of the people who passed the law in the first place?

      I’m certainly not happy about all these wildfires, but I do have to admit to a certain amount of schadenfreude aimed at the government over how they so quickly illustrated just how dumb this law is.

  • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I honestly don’t get this thing about FB blocking news - it’s because they are being forced to pay the news organisations, right? But why are they being forced to pay them - isn’t it good for the news organisations to have their links appear on FB, so that people click those links, read their articles and see their ads?

    I’m probably missing something, but I don’t get it.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Candian media wanted money. Thus a news link tax. (Australia tried the same thing, failed too.) But FB and Google called their bluff. Turns out FB and Google don’t make money by linking to Canadian media, so they’re happy to just delist those URLs.

      The Canadian conservative politicians wanted the PR for attacking the evil US liberal tech giants. So they were willing to gamble, because they don’t actually care about the media companies they claim to have been protecting.

      Everything you wrote is true, but also traditional media is largely dying off these days. They’re desperate for cash from anywhere.

      • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thanks, that’s interesting.

        It’s a shame, because I really don’t like FB much, and I would consider myself a supporter of traditional news media (quality stuff at least) - but here, I just can’t see how they think they have a case.

      • diffuselight@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Rupert didn’t fail. He got paid by Meta in Australia. It worked exactly as he had asked

        Also … are you ChatGPT because … Canadas government is liberal

        • orcrist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You know the word “conservative” has other common meanings, right? But if you prefer, let’s change it to “protectionist”.

      • ikidd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Canadian conservative politicians wanted the PR

        Wat? This was the Liberals that put this in.