Readit NewsI'm curious if the technology is now vastly out preforming the demand here or if the demand for compute is outpacing the tech.
I've been working on a platform called Sociables (https://www.sociables.com/) that gives content creators a place to offer their community as a part of their product offering. The difference between Patreon is it is much more focused on allowing creators to set up a place for their community to interact with each other instead of the more para-social style relationship seen on Patreon.
Deleted Comment
I've been working on a platform that blends social features from Discord with the discoverability of Reddit. What we're building is intentionally not just another Reddit or Discord clone. We're trying to create an all-in-one place for people to create communities first and foremost and not just posts/chat messages.
I think that's where social, discussion based platforms come in. I'm a huge hip-hop fan and have been running a page dedicated to giving people a space to discuss and share all things hip-hop.
I am trying to understand whether this charges for copying of news, or just linking to it.
It seems to be implied that the content is being copied. But news is already copyrightable. Why were existing copyright protections not sufficient?
Or does this law actually change for links?
And what about users sharing links? So if I just send a facebook friend a link to a newspaper, does the newspaper receive money for that?
Does Google need to pay for indexing news sites?
This bill is not about supporting independent media like they claim. This is first and foremost a link tax, and the result of it is damaging to free press. Independent media sources depend on traffic from social media platforms to function. They themselves are often the ones sharing the links to their own content to drive traffic and readership from in which they monetize through ads. Furthermore, many of these local publishers leverage their social media following to share content on behalf of other local businesses through sponsored articles and posts. The Canadian government playing strong man here when repeatedly warned of the outcome is putting independent media companies in serious jeopardy of remaining solvent.
Meta and Google are in the right here, and I hope they continue to stand their ground. If they cave on this issue, it sets a terrible precedent that jeopardizes the health of the internet as we know it. Companies should not have to pay the source whenever a link is shared on their platforms. It's just backwards.
If you are talking about situations where they are scraping and displaying the contents of an article, that is a different issue, and seemingly not one that is the primary target of this bill.
This was met by obvious pushback from the Canadian tech industry as it makes it even less enticing to start a business or give venture funding within Canada.
Despite the current prorogation, the finance department says the CRA will go ahead and enact this change despite the bill ever going through parliament.
It's pretty scary that the government can implement new laws like this without it ever going through the democratic process of parliament.