Its difficult to see " free" anything, in the new Post National State of Trudeau. I believe there have been many "hateful" people, such as myself, saying just that for sometime. I am sure this will ruffle a few feathers on here as we have dedicated "just" ifyers cheering everything that Trudeau does on . After all it's necessary and in the best interests of all Canadian's. Nothing could ever be further from the truth. Trudeau is a tyrant and is interested in controlling everything. When I was young we called it Communism but today the justifiers call it making things safe and inclusive.
It seems like the consumer is the last person thought of here. I don't want a subscription to one or multiple organizations for a year. I just want to buy a paper or article of my choice on a given day. I want to scan world, national, provincial, and local content depending on my mood or interests. I want commentary to be unbiased or at least balanced by the other side. Social media was never made with a news model in mind and the tide of opinion reflects this.
In a perfect world, articles through independent journalists would be posted reviewed, and ranked by readers. The winners would be compensated through a per view compensation and the losers would fall off the edge of the stack. It. seems as though we are alright to let coal die. but not big mass media based journalism.
Hold on a second...do you understand what modern Facebook is, though? It is no longer a simple webpage, as it and other platforms like it are essentially a combination Web Portal/Browser. Imagine if you took old school late 90s AOL or Yahoo homepages and combined them with a custom build of Chrome/Firefox branded after them.
As such, everyone and everything has to have a presence on Facebook, including posting their own stories or "links" in their Newsfeed.
What then happens is Facebook's browser/template not only has their own advertising around the Media Company's post in the individual user's News Feed, then when you click on the story and expand the window, Facebook has autoplay ads throughout the Media Company's article.
See, it's not exactly "links" Facebook posts, they actually don't even do that. A Media Company posts their CONTENT to the platform using a link to their own hosted site, which Facebook then auto creates a "Facebook specific" URL that basically redirects the user not outward to the World Wide Web, but internally to Facebook's mirror of the Media Company's site.
This is essentially theft of content, traffic AND advertising revenue, although as Facebook is potentially providing value it could be argued they should be eligible for a share of advertising revenue, but not all of it.
Is this relationship not unlike the one YouTube has with it's content creators? One they eventually had to begin paying So why is Facebook allowed to just create an environment that gives them not only direct control over creators and users, but the chance to profit massively by creating a bubble/lens around content that allows Media Companies to post it & you to view it. Yet provides Facebook with absolute control over what advertising you see while consuming said content, thus 100% of the associated profits from someone else's content.''
Facebook is a Multii-Billion Dollar grift, and it, and all other similar Social Media Scams, need to be forced to treat their content creators fair compensation for their work.
Ugh. Of all the policies this government has proposed, this is the one I think they've got the most wrong.
First, the entire business model for news and entertainment has changed. Rather than trying to help the industry through the transition, finding new business models and potentially audiences beyond Canada, we're actively propping up the old model. The means these businesses will be forever reliant on revenues from others (government mandated rents) and have zero reason to innovate. If you want to hobble an industry, that's a good way to do it. Dumb.
It also mixes up the challenge the data giants present. They are seamless distributors of data who -- via their algorithms -- decide who sees what. We could require some algorithmic transparency. We might even require them to rank Canadian content higher than they would otherwise. That addresses the desire for Canadians to access local content. But, rhat doesn't solve the advertising question.
We do have a precedent for that, though. When cassette tapes made it easy to copy music, the government put a levy on cassette tapes and distributed the money based on a formula that (IIRC) looked at sales and radio plays. We could tax the data giants based on the revenues generated in Canada and simply distribute the money based on readership. That's closer to addressing the near-monopoly data giants have on advertising. Not ideal, but way less convoluted than the government's proposal.
Ideally, we'd see news organizations come together and create an advertising network to rival the data giants, leveraging local content and readership. I'm not confident the incumbents are innovative enough to pull that off, but then propping them up limits entrepreneurs in Canada who might.
Somehow, this feels like a really badly constructed policy that's trying to address a legitimate issue. The Geist criticism has been quite good and I've yet to read a good defense of this policy approach. It really feels like the government fundamentally doesn't understand the brief and is just grabbing other policies (Australia) and trying to stretch them to fit the Canadian context (and doing it badly). This it way too important to screw up this badly.
I really appreciate articles like this, where the author has access to far more detail/context than I know about. I've developed a very strong dislike for the CBC over the past few years as I've moved more from the left to the centre, while they've joined the Woke Cult/Let's Emulate The USA In Most Things mindset.
I have written a multitude of comments over the years that attack the idea of what this type of policy does.
First off, I assume that the various internet organizations (hereafter, "VIO") will not take these monies out of their own profits and will therefore find a way to cause me - literally, me! - and you to pay extra. That means that I would be supporting Le Journal de Montreal, the Toronto Star, the Vancouver Province, etc., etc.
I don't want to support the Toronto Star, et al!! Not whatsoever. If I do want to support them and if I want to read their content I will purchase a subscription to those publications. I already subscribe to The Line, a number of Canadian newspapers and a variety of Canadian online publications because they interest me. But, but, but, I do not subscribe to the Toronto Star, et al because they do not interest me and I damned well do not want to be coerced into paying them.
So, if these publications want money from me, let them provide content that appeals to me or to others and we will pay to get past the paywall. There. Problem solved. If they cannot appeal to sufficient number of people to be able to be financially viable then they are deemed unnecessary by the population at large and should fail. As I say, problem solved.
Rather than simply offering criticism of a particular plan, perhaps this or another contributor could deal constructively with the actual issue. Menzies mentions โa free and independent pressโ a couple of times, but only in passing. Does trying to do anything to retain such a thing have merit? Why or why not? Should there be such a thing as journalistic standards โ or should it be โreader and/or viewer bewareโ?
If Menzies believes that a free, independent press which strives to maintain journalist standards is an unnecessary luxury in a society, then he should make the case. If it cannot make its way on its own, it should die โ we are better left with creative writers and algorithms that are able generate income by appealing to our personal biases. Using manufactured and distorted information to make a buck is fair game.
If that is his view, I would like to see it articulated โ it would make any discussion of government concern over journalism irrelevant. If that is not his view, then what is here is only someone sitting in an ivory tower throwing stones. Critique away, but offer something by way of a solution.
Hereโs a simple minded question: what would be the model, in your view, of payment for my favourite journalists if traditional news media disappeared?
What these criticisms of Bill C-18 have me asking is how will Bill C-18 influence the quantity and quality of the news available to me, an interested citizen? It seems to me that it will improve the news environment for me.
I note that none--and I mean not a single one--of Bill C-18's critics have addressed the effect of the bill on interested citizens. All the criticisms are in the hyperbolic 'the sky is falling' category, it seems to me.
Its difficult to see " free" anything, in the new Post National State of Trudeau. I believe there have been many "hateful" people, such as myself, saying just that for sometime. I am sure this will ruffle a few feathers on here as we have dedicated "just" ifyers cheering everything that Trudeau does on . After all it's necessary and in the best interests of all Canadian's. Nothing could ever be further from the truth. Trudeau is a tyrant and is interested in controlling everything. When I was young we called it Communism but today the justifiers call it making things safe and inclusive.
It seems like the consumer is the last person thought of here. I don't want a subscription to one or multiple organizations for a year. I just want to buy a paper or article of my choice on a given day. I want to scan world, national, provincial, and local content depending on my mood or interests. I want commentary to be unbiased or at least balanced by the other side. Social media was never made with a news model in mind and the tide of opinion reflects this.
In a perfect world, articles through independent journalists would be posted reviewed, and ranked by readers. The winners would be compensated through a per view compensation and the losers would fall off the edge of the stack. It. seems as though we are alright to let coal die. but not big mass media based journalism.
I'll just give my money to the line and others, and let the vultures sort out the swamp.
Hold on a second...do you understand what modern Facebook is, though? It is no longer a simple webpage, as it and other platforms like it are essentially a combination Web Portal/Browser. Imagine if you took old school late 90s AOL or Yahoo homepages and combined them with a custom build of Chrome/Firefox branded after them.
As such, everyone and everything has to have a presence on Facebook, including posting their own stories or "links" in their Newsfeed.
What then happens is Facebook's browser/template not only has their own advertising around the Media Company's post in the individual user's News Feed, then when you click on the story and expand the window, Facebook has autoplay ads throughout the Media Company's article.
See, it's not exactly "links" Facebook posts, they actually don't even do that. A Media Company posts their CONTENT to the platform using a link to their own hosted site, which Facebook then auto creates a "Facebook specific" URL that basically redirects the user not outward to the World Wide Web, but internally to Facebook's mirror of the Media Company's site.
This is essentially theft of content, traffic AND advertising revenue, although as Facebook is potentially providing value it could be argued they should be eligible for a share of advertising revenue, but not all of it.
Is this relationship not unlike the one YouTube has with it's content creators? One they eventually had to begin paying So why is Facebook allowed to just create an environment that gives them not only direct control over creators and users, but the chance to profit massively by creating a bubble/lens around content that allows Media Companies to post it & you to view it. Yet provides Facebook with absolute control over what advertising you see while consuming said content, thus 100% of the associated profits from someone else's content.''
Facebook is a Multii-Billion Dollar grift, and it, and all other similar Social Media Scams, need to be forced to treat their content creators fair compensation for their work.
Ugh. Of all the policies this government has proposed, this is the one I think they've got the most wrong.
First, the entire business model for news and entertainment has changed. Rather than trying to help the industry through the transition, finding new business models and potentially audiences beyond Canada, we're actively propping up the old model. The means these businesses will be forever reliant on revenues from others (government mandated rents) and have zero reason to innovate. If you want to hobble an industry, that's a good way to do it. Dumb.
It also mixes up the challenge the data giants present. They are seamless distributors of data who -- via their algorithms -- decide who sees what. We could require some algorithmic transparency. We might even require them to rank Canadian content higher than they would otherwise. That addresses the desire for Canadians to access local content. But, rhat doesn't solve the advertising question.
We do have a precedent for that, though. When cassette tapes made it easy to copy music, the government put a levy on cassette tapes and distributed the money based on a formula that (IIRC) looked at sales and radio plays. We could tax the data giants based on the revenues generated in Canada and simply distribute the money based on readership. That's closer to addressing the near-monopoly data giants have on advertising. Not ideal, but way less convoluted than the government's proposal.
Ideally, we'd see news organizations come together and create an advertising network to rival the data giants, leveraging local content and readership. I'm not confident the incumbents are innovative enough to pull that off, but then propping them up limits entrepreneurs in Canada who might.
Somehow, this feels like a really badly constructed policy that's trying to address a legitimate issue. The Geist criticism has been quite good and I've yet to read a good defense of this policy approach. It really feels like the government fundamentally doesn't understand the brief and is just grabbing other policies (Australia) and trying to stretch them to fit the Canadian context (and doing it badly). This it way too important to screw up this badly.
I see this as one more problem the government recognises but has no idea how to address, but feels they have to be seen to be doing something. "Canadaโs struggling newsrooms may soon be permanently wedded to the Silicon Valley web giants they blame for their economic demise". Without finding some method to generate revenue, these newsrooms will not exist. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/?fbclid=IwAR2dMbHp7PBtZmL8KfDSJZjOLxbCInwJAsjPSoIlJYlbPn9OSopO58X6_Go
I really appreciate articles like this, where the author has access to far more detail/context than I know about. I've developed a very strong dislike for the CBC over the past few years as I've moved more from the left to the centre, while they've joined the Woke Cult/Let's Emulate The USA In Most Things mindset.
I have written a multitude of comments over the years that attack the idea of what this type of policy does.
First off, I assume that the various internet organizations (hereafter, "VIO") will not take these monies out of their own profits and will therefore find a way to cause me - literally, me! - and you to pay extra. That means that I would be supporting Le Journal de Montreal, the Toronto Star, the Vancouver Province, etc., etc.
I don't want to support the Toronto Star, et al!! Not whatsoever. If I do want to support them and if I want to read their content I will purchase a subscription to those publications. I already subscribe to The Line, a number of Canadian newspapers and a variety of Canadian online publications because they interest me. But, but, but, I do not subscribe to the Toronto Star, et al because they do not interest me and I damned well do not want to be coerced into paying them.
So, if these publications want money from me, let them provide content that appeals to me or to others and we will pay to get past the paywall. There. Problem solved. If they cannot appeal to sufficient number of people to be able to be financially viable then they are deemed unnecessary by the population at large and should fail. As I say, problem solved.
Rather than simply offering criticism of a particular plan, perhaps this or another contributor could deal constructively with the actual issue. Menzies mentions โa free and independent pressโ a couple of times, but only in passing. Does trying to do anything to retain such a thing have merit? Why or why not? Should there be such a thing as journalistic standards โ or should it be โreader and/or viewer bewareโ?
If Menzies believes that a free, independent press which strives to maintain journalist standards is an unnecessary luxury in a society, then he should make the case. If it cannot make its way on its own, it should die โ we are better left with creative writers and algorithms that are able generate income by appealing to our personal biases. Using manufactured and distorted information to make a buck is fair game.
If that is his view, I would like to see it articulated โ it would make any discussion of government concern over journalism irrelevant. If that is not his view, then what is here is only someone sitting in an ivory tower throwing stones. Critique away, but offer something by way of a solution.
This could all be solved if we just stopped using facebook. If we do, it will also prevent climate change. ..
Hereโs a simple minded question: what would be the model, in your view, of payment for my favourite journalists if traditional news media disappeared?
Canada's 2022 Freedom Index Ranking is going to be very interesting.
What these criticisms of Bill C-18 have me asking is how will Bill C-18 influence the quantity and quality of the news available to me, an interested citizen? It seems to me that it will improve the news environment for me.
I note that none--and I mean not a single one--of Bill C-18's critics have addressed the effect of the bill on interested citizens. All the criticisms are in the hyperbolic 'the sky is falling' category, it seems to me.