57
TechDirt: As Canada Passes Corrupt Link Tax, Meta Says No More News Links In Canada (www.techdirt.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
76 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

TechDirt’s Mike Masnick gets it exactly right in covering Canada’s C-18 bill:

If you believe in the open web, if you believe that you should never have to pay to link to something, if you believe that no one should have to pay to provide you a benefit, then you should support Meta’s stance here. Yes, it’s self-serving for Meta. Of course it is. But, even if it’s by accident, or a side-effect, it’s helping to defend the open web, against a ridiculous attack from an astoundingly ignorant and foolish set of Canadian politicians.

And just generally points out the huge holes in Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez understanding from the Power & Politics Interview.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

My opinion on the corporate media that is the only one funded by this is the same as what you've just said. Just in a rich get richer approach to media in Canada. That's (one of) the big issues I have with this bill.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Yes I understand a lot of people feel this way. But the fact is the News media is being starved out by social media.

    What you're terming as "corporate media" is actually media that has journalistic standards. with independent media, that's not always the case.

    And facts are facts. If a newspaper owned by the Thomson group, Bell media, Rogers, or the CBC quotes Justin Trudeau, or says that someone has been arrested on a charge or reports on legislation that has passed parliament, those are things that happened. What I'm seeing is a lot of people spending a lot of time reading opinions and thinking they're informed on the news while being completely ignorant of the basic facts.

    We can't even agree on reality anymore because many people aren't aware of even the most basic facts around a story. If everyone in the country took even five minutes to get the facts from what you term "corporate media" we'd be way better off then we are now. We'd at least be able to have discussions about actual facts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I have seen worse behaviour and bias from corporate media than independent. I think we perhaps have very different pictures of what this means.

    My 20 years of seeing people denigrated as “bloggers” while opinion columnists are platformed and not held accountable hasn’t made me feel good about the information coming from corporate media.

    And yeah we’re in a tough spot. We need much better discussion tools. I don’t think the CRTC is the right entity to do a good job here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago

    The CRTC is never the right entity. But since there's no other entity that can do this kind of thing, they end up with the job.

    Yeah the prominence of opinion is a problem everywhere. But just filter out that stuff. But I find when I do that there's some articles left on mainstream sites. When I do the same for indy sites, there's basically nothing there.

    Journalism costs money. There's only enough money there for there to be just a few businesses to have actual journalism. Those sites will inevitably be labelled as mainstream an biased by alternative sites.

    I've yet to see any alternative to mainstream media that isn't just political activism that's making on like it's news.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    The problem I see is that much of the new is heavily slanted with inflammatory language. And I'm sure that's nothing new - that's how newspapers work. They have a story they want to tell.

    But when reading comprehension is on the decline, then these stories aren't understood, regardless of whether they're basic reporting on the facts or a straight up opinion columnist. It's great to say that if we could all understand the basic facts then we'd be fine, but the basic fact of it is that we can get the same basic facts, but disagree about the why and how of those facts.

    Easy example: for decades, we've had proof that the climate has been changing. That fact, most people are aware of and agree with. But a surprisingly large number of people will disagree with the why, and claim its because of natural temperature swings and humans aren't really impacting it. I am pretty firmly the other way, but I've had these arguments with people, and even after showing them data like this XKCD, they refuse to understand or change their minds/actions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    Yeah they certainly have a gap in terms of science reporting. They reported on global warming as a debate, because the newsroom was dominated by arts majors, poli sci types.

    But it has improved somewhat.

    In recent times it's been the independent media that reported the pandemic as a debate while most of mainstream media didn't. There were still significant gaps, to be sure, but most of mainstream media reported on the pandemic much better than most of independent media did.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent