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

    There’s a difference between scraping news organizations, summarizing it, and then presenting it on your site (which is what Google/Meta do, and what the regulation was meant to make them pay for), and having to pay for user shared content.

    Forcing Meta/Google to pay for the first case I don’t have an issue with, the second one though seems rather silly.

    • Rocket@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      which is what Google/Meta do

      No. Meta created Open Graph so that they don’t have to do that. It lets the publications define the summary (among a long list of other attributes). All of the major Canadian publications are using Open Graph.

      If they don’t want to give so much information, they can… stop providing the information. Classic case of management spending too much time in Ottawa and not enough time talking to the workers.

    • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe it’s silly, but that’s beside the point. Facebook is not being forced to remove news, they decided to not pay for it.