Canadian news media (unlike the vast majority of US news media besides NPR and PBS) is very significantly government subsidized, so this bill is really a stealth tax on Meta and Google.
Meta and Alphabet are not gonna run news room in Manitoba and Northern Ontario.
If we don’t, fine. Local news can die and be replaced by influencer I guess ?
Then if we do, who is paying for it.
In your analogy, Meta & Alphabet are installing a patio in front of the coffee shops, and offer samples of the most popular latte of the day for free and you can get as many as you want.
Simple, whoever wants the news.
> In your analogy, Meta & Alphabet are installing a patio in front of the coffee shops, and offer samples of the most popular latte of the day for free and you can get as many as you want.
Nah, the right analogy is Meta/Google drive a large bus of customers (only a fraction with tickets) to the coffee shop and not everyone goes into the shop. News orgs are then asking Google to pay them for Google driving the bus.
Charging someone for the "free" samples is no solution.
The shooter is usually dead, should be link to the victim’s obituary comment sections instead of a local news article ?
But someone has to write those too? LLM to the rescue!
Why is asking Fangs to give an obole to local news so insulting ?
Until those articles are writing themself, they don’t.
What they don't get to do is say, you must buy this headline from us, if you want it or not.
This is all beside the point because the object at issue here is links, which don't even necessarily contain content.
>Why is asking Fangs to give an obole to local news so insulting ?
It is insulting because if anything, local news should be paying FANG. They get much of their web traffic from social media and search.
They dont need the governments help to ask for money. They can simply stop letting their headlines and links be indexed. The fact is they don't want to do that because it benefits them. They could try to negotiate with GOOGLE/Meta, but GOOGLE/Meta would rather drop them than pay.
Nobody wants to pay for what they have so they have to resort to bills to force companies to buy something they would rather not have.
At least in the US, the federal government can punish you for it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
tl;dr Whether or not an action is interstate commerce, if it _affects_ interstate commerce in any way (broadly defined), then the federal government has jurisdiction and can punish you under their massive and capricious laws.
These proposals are like the Wickard_v._Filburn on steroids or the Obamacare mandate. Forcing the purchase of a product that the buyer would choose not to.
Trying to monetize and compensate for every externality is absurd.
If I make coffee at home that causes a coffee shop to lose out on Revenue. Surely I'm not responsible for paying the coffee shop for the Lost Revenue.
If I do go to the coffee shop, should the coffee shop have to share their revenue with the car company because it gave me a reason to drive my car?
In this case, social media makes money because people talk about news online instead of actually read it. This doesn't make social media companies responsible for the fact that no one wants to read a news article.