• wvenable@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    "Is Lemmy also morally responsible to pay media companies because there is a link to this article with a summary? " If it becomes profitable for the instance’s owner then yes.

    You’re arguing for the destruction of the web at this point. Freely linking to content is the backbone of the whole thing.

    It doesn’t because without social media you would still need to check articles on their website instead of just scanning a summary and some pictures in 5 seconds.

    You’re basically saying that actual journalism itself has no value – if a 2 line summary and single picture is the entire value to someone then why is anyone paying for this? An AI can make that for free. I could be a journalist if all the value is a summary and picture. You’re making such a twisted argument with this whole idea that people just read the summary, never click the article, and somehow somebody needs to make money from the article that nobody reads. Media companies provide the summary and pictures to Facebook so that they’ll click on the article in the first place.

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

      The destruction of the web… As if the web was social medias 🙄 If the web can’t survive the disappearance of Facebook and article summaries then I don’t want to use it anymore.

      Sure, I’m the one arguing for news corporations to be compensated for the content they provide but I believe journalism has no value 🙄

      Go check how much time people spend on each item on their feed on Facebook and how much time they spend on average on a web page vs just on Facebook every day and tell me again how Facebook is bringing traffic to traditional media!

      • wvenable@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The destruction of the web… As if the web was social medias

        Social media is just as part of the web as anything. Trying to carve out some exception for Facebook because you don’t like them is not a logical argument. What about Wikipedia? Reddit? Lemmy? Digg? Google?

        Go check how much time people spend on each item on their feed on Facebook and how much time they spend on average on a web page vs just on Facebook every day and tell me again how Facebook is bringing traffic to traditional media!

        Please provide the receipts, then.

        If people have to pay for links, how is that going to provide more traffic to traditional media? Isn’t that the whole point of links… to provide traffic.

        Facebook thinks people will spend just as much time on Facebook without news links. This whole law is pointless. It’s trying to create a market for “links” that doesn’t exist. Again, if media companies don’t want to provide summaries and images to Facebook they can do that. Instead, all the major news papers in Canada put tags specifically for Facebook to use with their content. They want those links. So makes it valuable to them, not the other way around.

        If all you just want to take money from Facebook and give it Canadian media companies, why not just make a law that does that.

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

          “people have to pay for links”

          Now it’s people that have to pay? What?

          You know what’s funny, you keep saying “It will be bad for media companies because it brings them clicks” but show me media companies complaining about the law then! Funny that, they don’t!

          La Presse’s director even have an interview where he said “If they block our links then so be it, it’s just sad that those who only inform themselves on social media will be losing on reliable information.”

          Man, that’s the reaction of someone who fears he might lose money!

          “If all you just want to take money from Facebook and give it Canadian media companies, why not just make a law that does that.”

          Let me present to you Bill C18!

          • wvenable@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ok. So Facebook doesn’t care and the media companies don’t care. I guess we’ll see who blinks first.

              • wvenable@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                If all that is needed to happen is that media companies withhold their content for Meta to capitulate then they could have done that. We don’t need a law for that.

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

                  Looks much better to be able to say “We tried to negotiate, they didn’t want to. The government tried to negotiate, they didn’t want to. The government passed a law to force them to negotiate, they left the table and blocked us. We took all the reasonable steps and they are the ones who are unreasonable.”

                  Anyway, what about smaller medias? You think Facebook would beg a local journal for a rural community to come back? As if.

                  • wvenable@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You know that the Australian law doesn’t even apply to smaller medias right? It’s unsurprising that a law basically written by Rupert Murdoch would include requirements that media companies have to be a certain size in order to eligible.