• nathris@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    It wasn’t a ban. It was a tax designed to funnel money into the media companies that own our politicians.

    It failed spectacularly because it shows that Canadians don’t visit Facebook for news coverage, and that Meta was 100% correct to not pay for access to content that its users don’t care about.

    • m0darn@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree that the tax was designed to funnel money into the media oligopoly to which our politicians are beholden.

      But like the headline, you are conflating the tax with the ban. They aren’t two sides of the same coin, the ban (or maybe more accurately boycott) is a reaction to the tax.

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

        Was it a tax? I thought the law simply required third parties to actually pay for reproducing the work of news outlets? Basically paying for paid work, rather than just stealing it?

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

      It was a ban on Meta’s side. Of course, not with an intent to dent their own user’s usage. That part does not logically follow.

      The headline (and probably the article) was written by machine, is all. That has been standard practice in the news business for many years now. Just another machine-generated hallucination that we have come to know and love.