I’d really like to understand this in a different light than I currently see it in…
People post stuff made by other sites on facebook, sometimes even the creators of the stuff. Facebook never posts these things on their own. Facebook makes money on ads on it’s site, this covers hosting, employees, coding…
People read stuff on Facebook, instead of creator’s site, and don’t view creator’s ads.
Creators want compensation, legislation forces it from Facebook.
Facebook disallows OTHERS from posting the stuff, so that they aren’t liable to creators for what those people (who are sometimes the same creators complaining) are doing. (Duh?)
The creators, now unpaid and standing to earn, posts this negatively everywhere and amplifies it on their platforms.
Canada is pissed?
Obviously if clicking through is desired, legislate that they can only show the link and title. Forcing companies to pay for what users post… Very obviously would end up with disallowed posting.
Pretty much spot on, just missing one thing. The way the law is written is that it also disallows direct links (these would forward individuals to news sites and generate add revenue).
Whomever came up with this law just does not understand the internet is built on links.
Media companies were complaining about social sites summarizing news content, therefore users would not have to go directly to a news site (lost revenue for media companies). Instead social sites were generating ad revenue themselves with more “active” users.
Media companies were complaining about social sites summarizing news content
Which is funny as Facebook gave editorial control over what is shown on Facebook to publishers many years ago using what they call the Open Graph protocol. All of the major news sites in Canada appear to be already using Open Graph – literally telling Facebook exactly what they want shown when someone links to their content, including the summary of their choosing.
It seems media company spokespeople need to spend more time talking to their fellow employees and less time talking to politicians. But, I know, it’s a better story to tell your friends that you got to have dinner with Justin Trudeau. Sharing that you stopped by Bob Smith’s desk in the software department doesn’t have quite the same ring.
That’s kind of right although I somewhat disagree with #2. It’s not so much that Facebook is causing people to not visit news organizations websites that’s hurting news organizations, but more so that there are so many ways to advertise to consumers now (largely through Facebook & Google) that the news organizations are struggling to get advertisers to pay them top $ to advertise with them like they used to. Basically, even if Facebook had banned news from day 1 of its existence and consumers had never expected to find it on Facebook, the fact that advertising has become cheaper would itself hurt news organizations that relied on advertising revenue.
I’d really like to understand this in a different light than I currently see it in…
People post stuff made by other sites on facebook, sometimes even the creators of the stuff. Facebook never posts these things on their own. Facebook makes money on ads on it’s site, this covers hosting, employees, coding…
People read stuff on Facebook, instead of creator’s site, and don’t view creator’s ads.
Creators want compensation, legislation forces it from Facebook.
Facebook disallows OTHERS from posting the stuff, so that they aren’t liable to creators for what those people (who are sometimes the same creators complaining) are doing. (Duh?)
The creators, now unpaid and standing to earn, posts this negatively everywhere and amplifies it on their platforms.
Canada is pissed?
Obviously if clicking through is desired, legislate that they can only show the link and title. Forcing companies to pay for what users post… Very obviously would end up with disallowed posting.
Pretty much spot on, just missing one thing. The way the law is written is that it also disallows direct links (these would forward individuals to news sites and generate add revenue).
Whomever came up with this law just does not understand the internet is built on links.
Media companies were complaining about social sites summarizing news content, therefore users would not have to go directly to a news site (lost revenue for media companies). Instead social sites were generating ad revenue themselves with more “active” users.
Which is funny as Facebook gave editorial control over what is shown on Facebook to publishers many years ago using what they call the Open Graph protocol. All of the major news sites in Canada appear to be already using Open Graph – literally telling Facebook exactly what they want shown when someone links to their content, including the summary of their choosing.
It seems media company spokespeople need to spend more time talking to their fellow employees and less time talking to politicians. But, I know, it’s a better story to tell your friends that you got to have dinner with Justin Trudeau. Sharing that you stopped by Bob Smith’s desk in the software department doesn’t have quite the same ring.
That’s kind of right although I somewhat disagree with #2. It’s not so much that Facebook is causing people to not visit news organizations websites that’s hurting news organizations, but more so that there are so many ways to advertise to consumers now (largely through Facebook & Google) that the news organizations are struggling to get advertisers to pay them top $ to advertise with them like they used to. Basically, even if Facebook had banned news from day 1 of its existence and consumers had never expected to find it on Facebook, the fact that advertising has become cheaper would itself hurt news organizations that relied on advertising revenue.