this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
10 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10180 readers
312 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Lucky CA, murica needs to follow suit desperately
Does it, though? In the past the argument was that aggregators like Google were stealing site traffic by showing large excepts or summaries of the articles they linked to, and I could understand that, but the new Canadian law seems like it wants to attach a fee to simply showing a hyperlink. That's fundamentally contrary to the way that the Internet was designed to work, and as the examples of blocking in the article demonstrate, it seems to confuse who is providing value to who in this specific instance. I take issue with the big platforms co-opting the open Internet, but penalizing them for showing links off their sites to news organizations seems to be the exact wrong thing to do about it.
Political leaders need better tech literacy like yesterday. Legislators not really understanding the fields they’re attempting to regulate is a problem that’s only going to get worse if trends continue.
Exactly this, very much a cut the noise to spite the face situation.