The NWT government and city of Yellowknife are describing in tweets, Instagram messages etc. how to search key evacuation information on CPAC and CBC. The broadcast carriers have a duty to carry emergency information, but Meta and X are blocking links.

While internet access is reportedly limited in Yellowknife, residents are finding this a barrier to getting current and accurate information. Even links to CBC radio are blocked.

  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They actually refused to go to the table and negotiate, contrary to Alphabet, which is why they’re treated differently.

    • Hakaku@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re misunderstanding the reporting on that. Articles like this state that Meta is not negotiating, but what this actually means is “Meta is not negotiating contracts with hundreds of Canadian news publishers”.

      Three takeaways:

      1. These negotiations have nothing to do with discussing the terms and wording of Bill C-18 prior to its royal assent;
      2. These articles are all published after Bill C-18 received royal assent;
      3. Meta isn’t required to enter negotiations until (a) the Online News Act comes into force, and (b) the CRTC explicitely names Meta as a “digital news intermediary” per the terms of the Online News Act. (Not that they intend to either way, at least for the time being.)

      As for discussing the terms of Bill C-18 prior to its royal assent, both Meta and Alphabet have equally and, in both Meta’s case and Alphabet’s case, publicly shared their concerns, feedback and recommendations on the Bill. No amendments to the legislation were ever made.

      The only reason Meta is getting more flack from Canadian News is because they acted now, while the topic is hot, whereas Alphabet will act later. Articles like the one OP linked to can’t be used to villify Alphabet because they’re not yet blocking news.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, you’re the one who’s misinterpreting what’s going on. Alphabet sent people to find common ground with the Canadian government by negotiating with them directly, Meta refused to do so, they shared their concerns publicly and that was it, they didn’t budge and said they wanted to make an example of Canada.

        https://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/794075/le-federal-suspend-ses-publicites-sur-facebook-et-instagram

        Le ministre a précisé qu’Alphabet n’est pas touchée par cette annonce, puisque la société mère du moteur de recherche Google travaille à « trouver une solution » avec le gouvernement.

        I can’t believe the number of people (especially Anglophones) defending the platforms instead of the medias.

        • Hakaku@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I have no clue what you’re arguing anymore to be honest, because ultimately it has nothing to do with anything I wrote initially. The article you linked to was written on July 6th and, as the very quote you provided states, “[Alphabet] travaille à « trouver une solution » avec le gouvernement”. Yes, it’s true Alphabet is continuing to discuss things with the government and that was also included in the link I provided if you bothered to take 2 seconds to read it. It’s also true that Alphabet has not yet blocked news as they weigh their options.

          As for Meta, yes, you’re right that they’ve chosen not to pursue discussions or negotiations after Bill C-18 received royal assent. This is correct. However, it still has absolutely nothing to do with discussing amendments prior to Bill C-18 receiving royal assent.

          I can’t believe the number of people (especially Anglophones) defending the platforms instead of the medias.

          À la fin de la journée, une loi stupide demeure une loi stupide. Si tu veux faire la victime et brailler parce qu’une plate-forme de réseau social (que tout le monde déteste de toute façon) décide qu’elle veut retirer les nouvelles plutôt que de payer pour des liens partagés par ses utilisateurs – ou si un jour un moteur de recherche dont le but est d’indexer les pages Web en ligne décide de faire la même chose parce que ça va à l’encontre du fonctionnement du Web, vas-y fort, braille. Ce n’est pas défendre Meta d’affirmer qu’ils suivent la loi comme elle est prescrite. Et ce n’est pas non plus défendre Meta (ou Alphabet ou quiconque) de dire que la loi est stupide, qu’elle pourrait avoir un impact néfaste sur d’autres entreprises nommées par le CRTC sans les mêmes moyens financiers, et que de forcer les entités (entreprises, organismes et, un jour sûrement, les individus) à payer pour le partage ou l’indexage de liens sur internet établit un très mauvais précédent.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Forcer les compagnies à payer pour le travail des gens qui leur font réaliser des profits sera toujours une bonne chose.