If I read correctly, they’re just complying. If they don’t want to pay, they need to filter out the content. It’s not really retaliation, but following the law
It sound like Meta is acting preemptively to put pressure on the government.
There isn’t much pressure to exert. C-18 has already received Royal Assent. The people of Canada have spoken, and this is what they want. Given that this is what Canadians have proclaimed as being what they want, why would Facebook wait?
If homicide laws were being introduced for the first time, and not yet in effect, are you going to kill a few people while you still can? Or are you going to realize that people don’t like being murdered and conclude that maybe you should not do that even if the law still technically allows?
The law has been passed but the actual regulations are to come.
It seems this is more about Meta not wanting to be subject to laws or courts of other countries.
The Australian version of the law would have given the minister power to designate firms, this one requires a more transparent process under regulation that would determine which firms are subject to the tax.
Some observers say that this was key point for Meta because it doesn’t want to accept being subject to legislation by any country outside the US on any issue.
Legislation that uses designations by ministers or Cabinet have been an issue for Canada in the past in trade relations with other countries. Foreign investment reviews. These were claimed to be not transparent decision processes.
What evidence do we have that this is about not wanting to accept Canada having legal authority?
There have been cases where Canadian courts have made court orders on Meta and Google and they have not complied because they claim the Canadian courts do not have jurisdiction. They claim they are only subject to the law of California and the US. As examples, there have been cases where Canadian courts have ordered access to the Facebook and Google accounts of deceased persons and they have not complied.
It seems this is more about Meta not wanting to be subject to laws or courts of other countries.
Clearly they’re not, as you tell at the end. But at the same time they have to pay some lip service to the wants of Canadians, else they risk seeing them flee the platform.
The legislation had Royal Assent, but coming into force and the publication of final regulations and, in turn, their effective date are yet further steps.
I believe Google announced that they’re doing the same thing, but haven’t actually pulled the plug yet. They’re probably just waiting until the law comes into effect and just drop Canadian news instead of negotiating payment.
If I read correctly, they’re just complying. If they don’t want to pay, they need to filter out the content. It’s not really retaliation, but following the law
From what we saw in earlier reports, the draft regulations haven’t even been gazetted for consultation yet.
It sound like Meta is acting preemptively to put pressure on the government.
There isn’t much pressure to exert. C-18 has already received Royal Assent. The people of Canada have spoken, and this is what they want. Given that this is what Canadians have proclaimed as being what they want, why would Facebook wait?
If homicide laws were being introduced for the first time, and not yet in effect, are you going to kill a few people while you still can? Or are you going to realize that people don’t like being murdered and conclude that maybe you should not do that even if the law still technically allows?
The law has been passed but the actual regulations are to come.
It seems this is more about Meta not wanting to be subject to laws or courts of other countries.
The Australian version of the law would have given the minister power to designate firms, this one requires a more transparent process under regulation that would determine which firms are subject to the tax.
Some observers say that this was key point for Meta because it doesn’t want to accept being subject to legislation by any country outside the US on any issue.
Legislation that uses designations by ministers or Cabinet have been an issue for Canada in the past in trade relations with other countries. Foreign investment reviews. These were claimed to be not transparent decision processes.
What evidence do we have that this is about not wanting to accept Canada having legal authority?
There have been cases where Canadian courts have made court orders on Meta and Google and they have not complied because they claim the Canadian courts do not have jurisdiction. They claim they are only subject to the law of California and the US. As examples, there have been cases where Canadian courts have ordered access to the Facebook and Google accounts of deceased persons and they have not complied.
Clearly they’re not, as you tell at the end. But at the same time they have to pay some lip service to the wants of Canadians, else they risk seeing them flee the platform.
Ahh can’t believe I missed that it wasn’t enacted yet - thanks!
The legislation had Royal Assent, but coming into force and the publication of final regulations and, in turn, their effective date are yet further steps.
I believe Google announced that they’re doing the same thing, but haven’t actually pulled the plug yet. They’re probably just waiting until the law comes into effect and just drop Canadian news instead of negotiating payment.