this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
4 points (66.7% liked)

CanadaPolitics

1895 readers
1 users here now

Placeholder for any r/CanadaPolitics refugees

Rules:

All of Lemmy.ca's rules apply

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
4
Salvaging Bill C-18: Government Upends Legislation To Bring Google Onside the Online News Act (www.michaelgeist.ca)
submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The government has announced that it has reached agreement with Google on deal that will ensure that news links are not blocked on the search engine and that the company pays $100 million to support the news sector in Canada.

top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

This comes across as sour grapes from the guy who wrote this. The compromise came Michael, and you were fear mongering this whole time.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

He doesn't sound too happy to concede being on the wrong side of this. I bought the absolutists libertarian approach towards net neutrality and the web 15 years ago. We've learned a few things since then.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago

That's funny, this appears to be legislation working, not being "salvaged".

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

"Salvaging" 🤔

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

According to the author, the policy was bad because...

  1. He estimates the benefits of Bill C-18 as "only" $50 million
  2. It was unnerving because "months of uncertainty [...] could have been avoided" (guess who benefits from all the drama?)
  3. It's barely at break-even (point number 1 again) because Google will supposedly cancel $100 MM from the Showcase program, which is unrelated?
  4. "The government was ultimately able to strike deal largely by changing the law [...] After claiming for months that it would not get involved in negotiations" lmao okay this is the worst one because it's a plain lie

‎

So the bill is bad because the government was able to strike a deal, which is what the author is saying it should have done anyway, and the problem is that the government said "it would not negotiate" - it never said that, it has been in negotiations since always. What is this garbage level of journalism? Geez, it's only outdone by the braindead comments.