People just hate Google.
Comment on Canada says Google will pay $74 million annually to Canadian news industry under new online law
drmoose@lemmy.world 7 months agoI agree with OP. This law is a disgrace and I don’t understand how people here on open fediverse can support it. It breaks the open web model and allows mega corporations to double dip - their content is public but only when they want it to be. So they want the advantages of public web without bearing the costs.
Disregard that this is Google. It sets precedent for all web and its as bad as other anti open web laws we hate.
ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 7 months ago
drmoose@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I hate giant corporations as much as anyone else but this recent trend of blindly siding with the opposition is just so incredibly dumb to the point where it feels like the fire is being stoked by legit political troll farms. Wouldn’t be surprised if they are involved in this spread of chaos and distraction.
GigglyBobble@kbin.social 7 months ago
Isn't partisanship the American way nowadays?
ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I read bipartisanship and was very confused
ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I can do nothing but agree. Their hate seems to blind them to the consequences.
GigglyBobble@kbin.social 7 months ago
A great example how helpful hatred is then.
DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
Can you elaborate a bit?
I don’t really see how this is anti open web.
breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
Free linking is essential for the open web. You can link to anything at no cost. That’s especially important here too; no free linking, no Lemmy. Link taxes are hostile to that, and that’s exactly what this is. It might be good for journalism - though it’s probably just the big players that are going to seriously benefit - but it’s a bad precedent.
DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
As I replied to the other commenter:
drmoose@lemmy.world 7 months ago
This law essentially gives special rights to corporate news websites. It allows them to have the benefits of being public source (indexing, sharing, previews, accessibility etc.) but they can choose not to bare the costs of public information. This shitty law should have been a copyright framework ammendment that applies to all IP but instead it’s a clear example of regulatory capture.
DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
What do you mean they can choose not to bear the costs of public information?
Every law ever created should have been better
Zak@lemmy.world 7 months ago
People opposed to a link tax are opposed to the concept, not the implementation.
kirklennon@kbin.social 7 months ago
The World Wide Web is a web of links. Websites link to other websites. These publishers want to be paid when certain companies link to them. That’s an affront to a core functionality of the web.
DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
If it were just a link then there wouldn’t be any problem. Users would follow the link to the publisher’s web site. I think the problem is that facebook et al scrape the content and show cards and summaries and then user’s don’t visit the publisher’s web site. They’re getting paid for their content, for being linked.
kirklennon@kbin.social 7 months ago
That’s the BS line publishers have been trying to trick people with but that extra stuff such as the lede and photo are explicitly provided by the publisher to enable rich preview cards/links. They literally add extra code in the page for that exact purpose. View source on any of their articles and you’ll see Open Graph metadata tags, which were created by Facebook.
They added code specifically so their links from Facebook would look better, and are now pretending like the rich preview cards are stealing their content.