When they said uncapped financial liability, I took that to also mean any meta user's post or search engine result that displayed the content could expose them financially - If I were a malicious actor, I would flood meta with posts from bots, and the equivalent to google results like posting too much of the article in the website's header.

No, the issue in this case is linking.

This is false. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36528169

Having any portion of the text present is enough.

I thought so too, and thought that removing the sites from Google Search was a bit bullyish, but it looks like the bill specifically targets links in (2)(b).

"Making available of news content (2) For the purposes of this Act, news content is made available if (a) the news content, or any portion of it, is reproduced; or (b) access to the news content, or any portion of it, is facilitated by any means, including an index, aggregation or ranking of news content."

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-18/royal-a...

This would include HN

No, it only applies to specifically regulated "digital news intermediaries" who are selected for regulation according to the criteria:

Application

6 This Act applies in respect of a digital news intermediary if, having regard to the following factors, there is a significant bargaining power imbalance between its operator and news businesses:

(a) the size of the intermediary or the operator;

(b) whether the market for the intermediary gives the operator a strategic advantage over news businesses; and

(c) whether the intermediary occupies a prominent market position.

So it would be up to the CRTC to decide whether or not to put HN on the list of "digital news intermediaries" by applying the above 3-part test. Given that HN is a (relatively) small forum, compared to Google or Facebook, it's unlikely for that to happen.

so then it depends on if HN ever embarasses the CRTC or the government. Better toe the line else be designated

I don’t think HNers will be losing any sleep over the inability to link to a couple of CBC articles!

The law tries to sort of massage this issue by just upfront saying that it only applies if you have a "significant bargaining power imbalance" over the news companies you're displaying.

Basically it only applies against you if you're big/important enough. I assume in practice this means Google, Facebook, Twitter, Bing, Apple, and probably some others. Reddit, I suppose.

Essentially if the news orgs have the ability to cancel you, you don't apply. Considering the amount of funding the news orgs in Canada take from the government, seems like the government just wants a better stick.

I have heard it only applies to Google and Facebook at this point in time. I doubt any other companies would be even capable of complying.

Why wouldn’t it apply to Microsoft, Apple, Twitter and Reddit if it applies to Google and Facebook?

Apple and Microsoft generally get their pay from licensing fees rather than advertising fees and are therefore not in competition with news media companies. Reddit has generally been a fairly niche player, although if things change it might get covered. I don't know whether Twitter is as important as people have said it is, or if it is niche: it seems both Canada and a few years ago Australia both decided it was niche. And if anything, I gather than Elon Musk's purchase has made it less dependent on its limited advertising revenue and more dependent on subscriptions etc; if so it is even less in competition with news media organisations today than it was when Australia reviewed it.

Remember that even though people misleadingly call Google and Facebook tech companies, they are in fact advertising companies; and although people speak of news companies, they have generally seen news, opinion and analysis as tools for connecting eyeballs to advertising i.e. they're effectively advertising companies. This bill is about the direct competition between the two kinds of advertising companies - traditional, ~domestic companies with close and personal ties to the people who govern vs new, foreign companies who don't have such essential ties to politicians as journalists do.

If it were literally just about the provision of news, then Canada and Australia fund the CBC/RC and the ABC/SBS so why would they be so fussed? There are people who today make a living from podcasts and substacks who could not make money from traditional advertising/media companies. News would be provided.

(In fact, just to bring the point home, the original version of Australia's equivalent bill didn't allow the ABC and SBS to participate, because as government-funded media organisations they didn't suffer from the transition of advertising from news-sponsoring to tech-sponsoring in the same way as private companies.)

I suspect, in practice, it means an ambiguous new power that can be leveraged in any way that seems useful at the time.

> the news content, or any portion of it, is reproduced

Do they define "portion" in more detail anywhere else? Otherwise, it's sounds like it's saying that using a single word that's contained by any news article means that "news content is made available", which is obviously absurd.