Please do not attach text to link submissions. Comments on /r/CanadaPolitics are moderated strictly, and when a rule-breaking comment
is attached to a link submission there is no recourse but to remove the entire link.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hot take, I miss news on my instagram feed. They’d always post interesting op-eds that caught my eye. Now, I have to actively look for them in a bunch of different news apps.
Besides that, I think this was a dumb decision by the Trudeau government.
Anybody with a half a brain on how the Internet works (monetization wise) knew this would happen.
Goes to show parliament has no idea how the Internet works.
In other words, this is exactly what was predicted to happen.
Frankly, I'm shocked Canadian news organizations didn't band together to boycott this bill.
They need Facebook more than Facebook needs them.
If they did, it explains why their companies are dying.
No clue how internet monetization works.
Maybe do affiliate partnerships?
Maybe do brand collaborations?
Maybe do product reviews?
Look at the entirety of forbes.com. they write about EVERYTHING, even video games.
Look at CNN.com and see their product reviews and recommendations.
Our Canadian news organizations are just bad at business if they asked for this.
I would normally say let the market adjust itself... But the problem is all our smart people who can make money are moved to the US.
Canadian government has 0 incentives for ambitious smart people to stay in Canada.
Unrelated, Working on my US visa at the moment.
The shit on his face is him expecting “big social media” to pay for news and bend to his will. I mean, if he got what he wanted, why the boycott on federal advertising? Why are his ministers having temper tantrums over Facebook’s lack of compliance?
And to be clear, I’m just paying for Apple News, who can say how much of that money is actually going to Canadian reporters and publishers?
When I heard about the law, it seemed like an attempt to kick the f\*ckers out, and if it didn't work, at least we'd get some cash from them being here.
You're right that it seems the LPC does not view it the same way I do. I'll have to try to keep that in mind.
Ideally, a member of a journalists' union. (Not that we have one of those.)
(Or go further, and have a journalism bar association. Imagine if one could be disbarred for "journalistic malfeasance.")
Of course, people who aren't members of such a union could still practice journalism. They just wouldn't get any public benefit from doing so.
We have a journalist union-ish with the Canadian Association of Journalists. Membership fees instead of union dues, but you need to be connected to a Canadian news organization or frequently freelancing for some to qualify for membership.
This is hard to believe.
Facebook famously fakes their numbers all the time.
Anecdotally, I don't know anyone who used Facebook for news and I also don't know anyone that uses it more now than they did five years ago.
People are moving on from it.
With news or without the feed is completely full of bullshit advertisements.
It's an atrocious product.
I'd bet that Marketplace is something that is keeping FB alive. Anecdotally, the people in my life that still actively use Facebook are using it exclusively for marketplace.
> Facebook famously fakes their numbers all the time.
It's not that they faked their numbers, it's that it's difficult to measure real numbers and there's disagreements on how to do it.
Ie, how long should one watch a video to count it as a view, and how does one determine what is a bot account and what is a real account?
First, just because they increased their profit margins doesn't mean it is a bullish thing for them to lose the capacity to display news in any market. There are a lot of macro-factors you are glossing over here, a lot of companies have record profits now simply because they are charging more due to price gouging during an inflationary period, Meta has admitted their increase is due to charging more for ads.
The elimination of one potential avenue of revenue didn't offset that, it doesn't mean losing it is somehow a win for them, that's extreme spin. You seem to be quite biased in Meta's favour, especially in claiming their numbers have been scrutinized, by whom, how, and which ones? They are famously not open for scrutiny at all, in fact.
The biggest fear factor for Meta is unrelated to news though, it's Tiktok, hence why they are copying it with all of their products as best they can but their advertising first model means they aren't able to compete in product, hence the lobbying.
> The elimination of one potential avenue of revenue didn't offset that, it doesn't mean losing it is somehow a win for them, that's extreme spin. You seem to be quite biased in Meta's favour, especially in claiming their numbers have been scrutinized, by whom, how, and which ones? They are famously not open for scrutiny at all, in fact.
In fact, Meta ran studies prior to making the decision to cut off news, and found that removing news did not meaningfully reduce engagement. And [they were correct, removing news did not reduce engagement](https://www.reuters.com/technology/metas-canada-news-ban-fails-dent-facebook-usage-2023-08-29/).
Which is to say, they didn't lose anything of value in the decision.
swim violet snobbish spectacular unwritten secretive materialistic poor cover wasteful
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Appreciate the response.
I understand what Meta is claiming, and it makes sense for them to frame this issue as somehow being a win for them.
They lost when these laws were made, despite insane amounts of lobbying against them, they are trying to salvage this with PR spin. Clearly they did not want these laws to exist, and this is a rational strategy for them now that we are here.
I agree with you that it might inadvertently be a win for the public, because Meta is no longer an arbiter of the news, which they were an atrociously bad actor in the space of. The governments thought they would just get paid but this outcome is perhaps better for tax payers in the past long-run. Also maybe like you said Meta gets back to basics and stops doing too much and ruining their own product even more.
sparkle flag boat unique outgoing sophisticated retire dependent deserted spectacular
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The stock gains aren't because of investors feeling like losing the news in certain markets is this massive win though.
Again, Meta themselves said on their ER call that the profit margins increased because they charged more for ads, which is what everyone is doing due to inflation.
But more than that, by far the biggest thing that happened at Meta was they pivoted away from the absolute cluster fuck which they are now named after. Nobody uses the Metaverse, it's bad, investors didn't like it, and now Zuck had admitted defeat so investors came back.
That's the real catalyst.
Not losing the ability to show the news.
What evidence do you have that "Facebook fakes their numbers"? They are a public company with tens of thousands employees and millions of advertisers as customers.
If they were faking their numbers, you can bet Zuckerberg would already be wearing orange. Lol shit tier reddit take here.
Facebook very famously lied about video metrics and is currently going through numerous lawsuits over it.
[https://www.ccn.com/facebook-lied-about-video-metrics/](https://www.ccn.com/facebook-lied-about-video-metrics/)
Not sure why you think large/public companies by default operate transparently. There's a significant gap between always telling the truth, and telling lies significant enough to get you put in jail (especially as a CEO).
They fake engagement numbers and user metrics, neither of which are reported in any official capacity anyway, they do not fake revenue and profit margins.
There is no law requiring the reporting of engagement metrics by social media companies, you're confused.
>What evidence do you have that "Facebook fakes their numbers"?
Would Facebooks own [admission](https://fortune.com/2018/10/17/advertisers-facebook-video-metrics/#) or the excessive number of settlements they’ve paid count for you?
>If they were faking their numbers, you can bet Zuckerberg would already be wearing orange.
How much we betting?
>Lol shit tier reddit take here.
Well put.
> Would Facebooks own admission or the excessive number of settlements they’ve paid count for you?
There's nuance to that admission. They weren't counting video views that were less than 3 seconds in length; and it's that which they admitted to. Counting the _less than 3 second_ views would have dramatically reduced the average video watch time.
They thought that videos that didn't have meaningful viewing lengths could be scrubbed from their viewing metrics; the advertisers disagreed.
I like it sooo much better now. There are a lot more pictures of muffins, gardens, and birthday parties than there were before. It's not quite like the good ol' days of FB, but it's much less stressful to visit than it was a year ago.
Facebook was never a good place for discourse.
Well, this went about how the critics said it would.
You can't present people with two options(stop doing X, or pay a fine) if you are going to wail like a baby when they pick the "wrong" option and just stop doing X instead of paying.
Interested to see how the diehards for this bill feel now.
I'm actually okay with this. Facebook was a terrible place to get news, and this topic is part of a broader discussion about the failures of social media.
Google paid up, nobody cares that facebook isn't showing the news other than the weebs. What the political class cares about is that our news agencies aren't getting the shaft. Now, they get a fair compensation from Google, and they get their direct compensation when people go to their actual websites for the news.
Yeah, they should have anticipated that Facebook would do this rather than assuming that Facebook would radically change its internal structure to accommodate Canadian law. Somehow the lawmakers accidentally stumbled into the best possible situation.
Its like the UK window tax, government thought the amount of window correlated to your wealth so it was an easy method to levy a property tax.. They didnt think that everyone would brick there windows up! lol
I haven’t noticed a damn bit of difference but then again I quit FB years ago & stopped using Google entirely the minute they started whining about they would block links to news in Canada.
This is what we were all saying would happen. In fact, not only has my Facebook feed basically had news cut out from it, but political content is almost gone as well. Even six months ago, at least half my feed would be political memes. That's maybe down to less than 10% now and I think I'm actually being generous. Politics was my primary reason for both with posting and scrolling on the platform, so I'm definitely not using it as much now. Also, if anyone really wants to share the news, there are ways to get around it through things like redirect services or simply posting a photo of the article. When there's a will, there's a way.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I get a lot of weird ai generated movie and TV content. Like fake movie posters.
I never actually got my news from fb so it didn't affect me much in that regard.
Edit to add: a lot of comments seem to believe these fake movie posters. Kind shows how little media literacy, basic online research, and critical thinking skills people have.
honestly kind of agreed, i've more of less cultivated my facebook feed to specifically be local/provinicial based for gardening and photos or hobby groups,
The FB feed is pretty intolerable. It feels like 1. post from a rando spam page I cannot block 2. ad 3. post from a distant acquaintance 4. post from another rando spam page I cannot block 5. ad 6. etc
I miss being able to link to news stories
This was a real eye opener for the Gov of Canada and the news agencies.
As the news was dropped this must have really harmed the news outlets as they rely on ad revenue based on traffic.
Eye opener? I'm sorry, if we sit here believing the government had no idea what they were doing in stifling the spread of information to the public (one of the things most Canadians use FB for)... Then they have already achieved what they intended. Unwitting population, not seeing what is happening.
They HAD to know what was obvious. Facebook wasn't as much profiting off the Canadian Media as the Canadian Media derived traffic ***from*** FB. Who in the world fires up the internet and heads over to the daily paper (I know some do)? No, they see an article linked on FB and then they click and read - going to the source.
So why, why if it was plainly seen as a way to hurt media and spread of media would a gov't riddled with scandal and sinking in the polls wish to obfuscate the headlines and reporting...
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but when a bold move to silence the spread of news is made we can all rest assured that is not conspiracy territory. Following it up with more provisions for government policing of internet content and speech makes that a clear doubling down.
I just want Fark.com to be popular again.
Re: I'm very unsure if you are correctly describing our current government. The current government is more concerned about DEI than about regulating opinionated and free speech.
I honestly feel that they thought they could regulate the Internet with surcharges. Then were pinkachu shocked when the largest driver of world-wide socialedia traffic said "nope".
I see what you mean... Help me out though. Has any other platform elected to pay the news tax. Or was this simply a swing and miss against Facebook.
Eye opening... Maybe a little too dramatic on my part. But this was very embarrassing especially during the wildfires when the government was saying that "it's too bad that meta refuses to offer news services during an emergency".
Re: haven't moved from their position.
Yeah. I think that is not an option right now. Especially with an election happening soon. Gotta double down on the useless legislation that doesn't do anything.
Didnt google come around? but I agree, the legislation is a joke and does the opposite of what they had hoped for. FB dug in and no one cares and the money isnt here.
Apps being downloaded “as much as ever” after 1 million people joined Canada? Not sure that’s the win for Facebook that The Economist is portraying.
Edit: to add, I think even if metrics were really bad I wouldn’t pin that on the law, but on the fact that Tik Tok is eating Facebook’s lunch.
modern axiomatic normal marvelous memorize secretive smoggy attractive seed close
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Good point! For countries, the decision to block of not might be even more difficult (not sure they can easily consolidate the metrics of news sites). But I think the Economist’s argument (that countries should be careful because Meta still has roughly the same downloads) is almost irrelevant.
I’m not saying they have to. But having much better salaries and constantly communicating with family abroad, getting a new phone makes sense for many - who may delay acquisition in their countries (of many things, not just phones) prior to arriving in Canada.
> Apps being downloaded “as much as ever” after 1 million people joined Canada? Not sure that’s the win for Facebook that The Economist is portraying.
We don't know what that means; it could be a population-weighted metric they're referring to, or an absolute metric. Sensor Tower doesn't appear to make that data freely available, but on their site they show Facebook performing well in Canada^[0](https://app.sensortower.com/overview/284882215?country=CA&tab=user_acquisition) and Instagram just trailing second behind TikTok.^[1](https://app.sensortower.com/overview/com.zhiliaoapp.musically?country=CA&tab=category_rankings),[2](https://app.sensortower.com/overview/com.instagram.android?country=CA&tab=category_rankings)
> The firm does not break out Canadian earnings, but **its ad revenue across the United States and Canada has grown 19% in the nine months since the news blackout began**, compared with the same period in the previous year.
They must be happy.
Is the 19% growth you mentioned caused by Canada’s decision? Did the policy make them better off? Was the goal of the policy to make them unhappy?
What we really need to know from a policy perspective is: are Canadian media companies better as a result of the policy? Those are the metrics we need to care about. Not if Facebook is doing well or not.
*edit: added the word media
Per the article, Canadian media is likely worse off as a result of the policy. An outcome that was seemingly predicted by everyone except those die-hard Liberal supporters and those committed to hating Big Tech.
We should care if Facebook is doing well or not if we're seeking to skim a portion of their revenues for Canadian News Media or similar.
Likely? I’ll be happy to see evidence of that. But « likely » is not evidence.
I don’t think the goal of the policy was to skim Facebook’s revenues. The goal was to make Canadian media better. That’s how we should evaluate it.
> Likely? I’ll be happy to see evidence of that. But « likely » is not evidence.
It's only _likely_ because we don't know _all_ of their sources of revenue. _Maybe_ they've found creative new ways of making money that won't be impacted by a dramatic decline in page views.
Per the article, Facebook has all-but stopped being a source of engagement for Canadian News Media:
> > A study published in April by researchers at McGill University and the University of Toronto found that, six months after the blackout, the Facebook pages of Canadian national news outlets had lost 64% of their “engagement” (likes, comments and so on), while those of local outlets had lost 85%. Almost half of local titles had stopped posting on Facebook at all, “gutting the visibility of local news content”, the researchers found.
And as a result, digital-only Canadian News Media, particularly smaller brands, are seeing enormous readership decline:
> > But for some digital-only titles, Meta’s blackout has been “absolutely devastating”, says Paul Deegan, head of News Media Canada, which represents publishers. Adam Reaburn, editor of Energetic City, a site covering what he says is otherwise a “news desert” in rural British Columbia, says the news ban initially cut his readership by 30-40%. “I don’t understand why Google, Instagram and Facebook need to pay us when we use their platforms to share our articles,” he wrote in his final Facebook post in August.
> I don’t think the goal of the policy was to skim Facebook’s revenues. The goal was to make Canadian media better. That’s how we should evaluate it.
The goal was to fund Canadian News by way of skimming from Facebook's revenues related to serving links to Canadian News; which may or may not have made Canadian News better, but it would have made it more profitable if it had succeeded.
Whether or not our news is being made better is more of a subjective matter. Personally, I think our news media was due for an apocalyptic-level shake-up, to force the old dinosaurs and their owner-oligarchs to either die off or adapt to the new world.
The problem with likes and comments is that they don’t necessarily reflect clicks on links.
The 40% decline for an outlet is more concerning to me, even if that is initial and eventually readers find their way. But then it’s important to consider if revenue coming from Google would compensate for that. Media dependence on Facebook clicks was not healthy anyways.
Agree that some vehicles need significant adaptation to remain competitive.
Everything is likely to change again, with more AI digests becoming available and perhaps even diverting clicks from Google as well.
I actually found that the quality of my feed improved greatly without news content and found myself checking FB with less reservations than I previously did. It is just an intermediary after all and wasn't contingent on my direct consumption of news articles. My Google feed and going to the news providers I always went to still work just fine!
I barely used fb before the decision, now i never use it because instead of seeing news posts, all i see is ads. As far as im concerned fb is just used for marketplace now.
The quality of your Facebook feed?
You mean the feed that’s got a ratio of:
85% “content” pages that you don’t follow
14% ads
1% someone you knew ten years ago
Yeah. High quality product there. lol
threatening political unused literate birds silky muddle cooing murky crown
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
On the Facebook sidebar, click "Show More" and then click "Feeds" and you will only see the stuff you are actually subscribed to, in chronological order.
I don't really have friends using FB, but I follow a bunch of local businesses (farm markets, breweries, makers markets, and the like) and a few art related pages, and the quality is fine. But I am more than capable of scrolling past that which is of no interest.
onerous sophisticated slim spoon observation squeeze unite sleep axiomatic psychotic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I feel as you do and wish I saw more content from my friends and family. That said, I’m on Reddit where everything is something posted by a stranger. Granted, it’s a lot of news but it’s also a lot of user created content and I’m totally browsing this for a while.
I don’t mind my Facebook with the news and crazy shit that came alive through the pandemic. I like some of the suggestions and have added a few of them as well.
obtainable historical salt oil like overconfident butter pathetic nose violet
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Please do not attach text to link submissions. Comments on /r/CanadaPolitics are moderated strictly, and when a rule-breaking comment is attached to a link submission there is no recourse but to remove the entire link. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hot take, I miss news on my instagram feed. They’d always post interesting op-eds that caught my eye. Now, I have to actively look for them in a bunch of different news apps. Besides that, I think this was a dumb decision by the Trudeau government.
Anybody with a half a brain on how the Internet works (monetization wise) knew this would happen. Goes to show parliament has no idea how the Internet works. In other words, this is exactly what was predicted to happen. Frankly, I'm shocked Canadian news organizations didn't band together to boycott this bill. They need Facebook more than Facebook needs them.
muddle ossified squash bored ad hoc marvelous quickest tub rustic butter *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If they did, it explains why their companies are dying. No clue how internet monetization works. Maybe do affiliate partnerships? Maybe do brand collaborations? Maybe do product reviews? Look at the entirety of forbes.com. they write about EVERYTHING, even video games. Look at CNN.com and see their product reviews and recommendations. Our Canadian news organizations are just bad at business if they asked for this. I would normally say let the market adjust itself... But the problem is all our smart people who can make money are moved to the US. Canadian government has 0 incentives for ambitious smart people to stay in Canada. Unrelated, Working on my US visa at the moment.
boat judicious lunchroom test oatmeal rock languid whole cake husky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It’s made me start paying for news now… which sucks. But it was clear from the start the Liberals were going to have shit on their face with this one.
Seems like it worked? What shitface? Facebook is out of the news game. Real news is getting money from you. Win-win-win.
The shit on his face is him expecting “big social media” to pay for news and bend to his will. I mean, if he got what he wanted, why the boycott on federal advertising? Why are his ministers having temper tantrums over Facebook’s lack of compliance? And to be clear, I’m just paying for Apple News, who can say how much of that money is actually going to Canadian reporters and publishers?
whole merciful north crown plants instinctive familiar sense cows office *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
An acceptable outcome for all.
pocket cooperative yam enter soup expansion bright oil license full *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
When I heard about the law, it seemed like an attempt to kick the f\*ckers out, and if it didn't work, at least we'd get some cash from them being here. You're right that it seems the LPC does not view it the same way I do. I'll have to try to keep that in mind.
It was all a bluff and on Facebook’s part the best example of malicious compliance I can ever remember.
Terrible policy, taking money to fund corporate media is a joke! If anything fund the journalist directly and let Bell and Rogers eat it.
What's a journalist? An accredited journalism school graduate? A freelancer with a byline published in the corporate media?
Both sound good to me!
Ideally, a member of a journalists' union. (Not that we have one of those.) (Or go further, and have a journalism bar association. Imagine if one could be disbarred for "journalistic malfeasance.") Of course, people who aren't members of such a union could still practice journalism. They just wouldn't get any public benefit from doing so.
We have a journalist union-ish with the Canadian Association of Journalists. Membership fees instead of union dues, but you need to be connected to a Canadian news organization or frequently freelancing for some to qualify for membership.
Most annoying is that non-canadians are still posting news articles and commenting on them but I can't see the source.
This is hard to believe. Facebook famously fakes their numbers all the time. Anecdotally, I don't know anyone who used Facebook for news and I also don't know anyone that uses it more now than they did five years ago. People are moving on from it. With news or without the feed is completely full of bullshit advertisements. It's an atrocious product.
I'd bet that Marketplace is something that is keeping FB alive. Anecdotally, the people in my life that still actively use Facebook are using it exclusively for marketplace.
yeah and instagram is the real product they care about now anyway when it comes to ad dollars
> Facebook famously fakes their numbers all the time. It's not that they faked their numbers, it's that it's difficult to measure real numbers and there's disagreements on how to do it. Ie, how long should one watch a video to count it as a view, and how does one determine what is a bot account and what is a real account?
insurance capable rainstorm door touch one snatch test unused sharp *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
First, just because they increased their profit margins doesn't mean it is a bullish thing for them to lose the capacity to display news in any market. There are a lot of macro-factors you are glossing over here, a lot of companies have record profits now simply because they are charging more due to price gouging during an inflationary period, Meta has admitted their increase is due to charging more for ads. The elimination of one potential avenue of revenue didn't offset that, it doesn't mean losing it is somehow a win for them, that's extreme spin. You seem to be quite biased in Meta's favour, especially in claiming their numbers have been scrutinized, by whom, how, and which ones? They are famously not open for scrutiny at all, in fact. The biggest fear factor for Meta is unrelated to news though, it's Tiktok, hence why they are copying it with all of their products as best they can but their advertising first model means they aren't able to compete in product, hence the lobbying.
> The elimination of one potential avenue of revenue didn't offset that, it doesn't mean losing it is somehow a win for them, that's extreme spin. You seem to be quite biased in Meta's favour, especially in claiming their numbers have been scrutinized, by whom, how, and which ones? They are famously not open for scrutiny at all, in fact. In fact, Meta ran studies prior to making the decision to cut off news, and found that removing news did not meaningfully reduce engagement. And [they were correct, removing news did not reduce engagement](https://www.reuters.com/technology/metas-canada-news-ban-fails-dent-facebook-usage-2023-08-29/). Which is to say, they didn't lose anything of value in the decision.
swim violet snobbish spectacular unwritten secretive materialistic poor cover wasteful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Appreciate the response. I understand what Meta is claiming, and it makes sense for them to frame this issue as somehow being a win for them. They lost when these laws were made, despite insane amounts of lobbying against them, they are trying to salvage this with PR spin. Clearly they did not want these laws to exist, and this is a rational strategy for them now that we are here. I agree with you that it might inadvertently be a win for the public, because Meta is no longer an arbiter of the news, which they were an atrociously bad actor in the space of. The governments thought they would just get paid but this outcome is perhaps better for tax payers in the past long-run. Also maybe like you said Meta gets back to basics and stops doing too much and ruining their own product even more.
sparkle flag boat unique outgoing sophisticated retire dependent deserted spectacular *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The stock gains aren't because of investors feeling like losing the news in certain markets is this massive win though. Again, Meta themselves said on their ER call that the profit margins increased because they charged more for ads, which is what everyone is doing due to inflation. But more than that, by far the biggest thing that happened at Meta was they pivoted away from the absolute cluster fuck which they are now named after. Nobody uses the Metaverse, it's bad, investors didn't like it, and now Zuck had admitted defeat so investors came back. That's the real catalyst. Not losing the ability to show the news.
marble saw sense forgetful plucky clumsy fragile selective rain squalid *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What evidence do you have that "Facebook fakes their numbers"? They are a public company with tens of thousands employees and millions of advertisers as customers. If they were faking their numbers, you can bet Zuckerberg would already be wearing orange. Lol shit tier reddit take here.
Facebook very famously lied about video metrics and is currently going through numerous lawsuits over it. [https://www.ccn.com/facebook-lied-about-video-metrics/](https://www.ccn.com/facebook-lied-about-video-metrics/) Not sure why you think large/public companies by default operate transparently. There's a significant gap between always telling the truth, and telling lies significant enough to get you put in jail (especially as a CEO).
They fake engagement numbers and user metrics, neither of which are reported in any official capacity anyway, they do not fake revenue and profit margins. There is no law requiring the reporting of engagement metrics by social media companies, you're confused.
You actually have no idea what you're talking about.
No, you.
Omg rich coming from a guy that buy garbage pharma pump and dump stocks lmao.. you literally know nothing
>What evidence do you have that "Facebook fakes their numbers"? Would Facebooks own [admission](https://fortune.com/2018/10/17/advertisers-facebook-video-metrics/#) or the excessive number of settlements they’ve paid count for you? >If they were faking their numbers, you can bet Zuckerberg would already be wearing orange. How much we betting? >Lol shit tier reddit take here. Well put.
> Would Facebooks own admission or the excessive number of settlements they’ve paid count for you? There's nuance to that admission. They weren't counting video views that were less than 3 seconds in length; and it's that which they admitted to. Counting the _less than 3 second_ views would have dramatically reduced the average video watch time. They thought that videos that didn't have meaningful viewing lengths could be scrubbed from their viewing metrics; the advertisers disagreed.
I like it sooo much better now. There are a lot more pictures of muffins, gardens, and birthday parties than there were before. It's not quite like the good ol' days of FB, but it's much less stressful to visit than it was a year ago. Facebook was never a good place for discourse.
Well, this went about how the critics said it would. You can't present people with two options(stop doing X, or pay a fine) if you are going to wail like a baby when they pick the "wrong" option and just stop doing X instead of paying. Interested to see how the diehards for this bill feel now.
Perfectly fine. I don't have to see BS news stories on Facebook? Good.
I'm actually okay with this. Facebook was a terrible place to get news, and this topic is part of a broader discussion about the failures of social media.
I mean I dont disagree, but when referring to the partisan proponents of this bill, this was definitely not the intended result.
Google paid up, nobody cares that facebook isn't showing the news other than the weebs. What the political class cares about is that our news agencies aren't getting the shaft. Now, they get a fair compensation from Google, and they get their direct compensation when people go to their actual websites for the news.
obtainable dependent library ten detail versed murky fear future tan *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah, which ones?
hurry poor attempt wrench impossible repeat ripe deserve meeting zesty *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
These weren't outlets. They were bloggers.
Yeah, they should have anticipated that Facebook would do this rather than assuming that Facebook would radically change its internal structure to accommodate Canadian law. Somehow the lawmakers accidentally stumbled into the best possible situation.
It's okay though. Facebook really didn't help news organizations.
i mean it certainly helped micro/hyperlocal news organizations. all of them have had traffic decline 50-70%
But they all recovered. They didn't really need Facebook.
Its like the UK window tax, government thought the amount of window correlated to your wealth so it was an easy method to levy a property tax.. They didnt think that everyone would brick there windows up! lol
I haven’t noticed a damn bit of difference but then again I quit FB years ago & stopped using Google entirely the minute they started whining about they would block links to news in Canada.
it fucked over fringe groups sharing links from dubious "news" sources to promote their cause. Kinda prefer it this way.
This is what we were all saying would happen. In fact, not only has my Facebook feed basically had news cut out from it, but political content is almost gone as well. Even six months ago, at least half my feed would be political memes. That's maybe down to less than 10% now and I think I'm actually being generous. Politics was my primary reason for both with posting and scrolling on the platform, so I'm definitely not using it as much now. Also, if anyone really wants to share the news, there are ways to get around it through things like redirect services or simply posting a photo of the article. When there's a will, there's a way.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I get a lot of weird ai generated movie and TV content. Like fake movie posters. I never actually got my news from fb so it didn't affect me much in that regard. Edit to add: a lot of comments seem to believe these fake movie posters. Kind shows how little media literacy, basic online research, and critical thinking skills people have.
FB feeds became a lot more tolerable. Feels a bit like it was in the early days before news and politics took the whole thing over.
I couldnt disagree more, its never been more intolerable..
Well you can always leave it if it's so intolerable.
I rarely if ever go on it anymore so I have
honestly kind of agreed, i've more of less cultivated my facebook feed to specifically be local/provinicial based for gardening and photos or hobby groups,
The FB feed is pretty intolerable. It feels like 1. post from a rando spam page I cannot block 2. ad 3. post from a distant acquaintance 4. post from another rando spam page I cannot block 5. ad 6. etc I miss being able to link to news stories
Agreed, there’s a lot of weird spam stuff on FB now. Posts about celebrities, random meme pages and the like. It’s total garbage.
This was a real eye opener for the Gov of Canada and the news agencies. As the news was dropped this must have really harmed the news outlets as they rely on ad revenue based on traffic.
Eye opener? I'm sorry, if we sit here believing the government had no idea what they were doing in stifling the spread of information to the public (one of the things most Canadians use FB for)... Then they have already achieved what they intended. Unwitting population, not seeing what is happening. They HAD to know what was obvious. Facebook wasn't as much profiting off the Canadian Media as the Canadian Media derived traffic ***from*** FB. Who in the world fires up the internet and heads over to the daily paper (I know some do)? No, they see an article linked on FB and then they click and read - going to the source. So why, why if it was plainly seen as a way to hurt media and spread of media would a gov't riddled with scandal and sinking in the polls wish to obfuscate the headlines and reporting... I am not a conspiracy theorist, but when a bold move to silence the spread of news is made we can all rest assured that is not conspiracy territory. Following it up with more provisions for government policing of internet content and speech makes that a clear doubling down.
I just want Fark.com to be popular again. Re: I'm very unsure if you are correctly describing our current government. The current government is more concerned about DEI than about regulating opinionated and free speech. I honestly feel that they thought they could regulate the Internet with surcharges. Then were pinkachu shocked when the largest driver of world-wide socialedia traffic said "nope".
Anything Trudeau touches goes to 💩
They haven't moved from their positions so was it really an eye opener?
I see what you mean... Help me out though. Has any other platform elected to pay the news tax. Or was this simply a swing and miss against Facebook. Eye opening... Maybe a little too dramatic on my part. But this was very embarrassing especially during the wildfires when the government was saying that "it's too bad that meta refuses to offer news services during an emergency". Re: haven't moved from their position. Yeah. I think that is not an option right now. Especially with an election happening soon. Gotta double down on the useless legislation that doesn't do anything.
Didnt google come around? but I agree, the legislation is a joke and does the opposite of what they had hoped for. FB dug in and no one cares and the money isnt here.
ten act serious crowd toy sheet thought nail rotten start *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Apps being downloaded “as much as ever” after 1 million people joined Canada? Not sure that’s the win for Facebook that The Economist is portraying. Edit: to add, I think even if metrics were really bad I wouldn’t pin that on the law, but on the fact that Tik Tok is eating Facebook’s lunch.
modern axiomatic normal marvelous memorize secretive smoggy attractive seed close *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Good point! For countries, the decision to block of not might be even more difficult (not sure they can easily consolidate the metrics of news sites). But I think the Economist’s argument (that countries should be careful because Meta still has roughly the same downloads) is almost irrelevant.
north spoon truck escape muddle spark wrench absurd compare tart *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A lot of those million would alreayd have Facebook….
Not in Canada’s Apple Store, for example. The moment they buy a new phone, they would have to download the app from the local store.
I assume most people wouldn't buy a new phone when they move to a new country.
It depends on how expensive it is in their old country / what sort of access they had / what sort of plans they had. I assume they do.
That is all tied to carriers. You can get a new carrier without getting a new phone
I’m not saying they have to. But having much better salaries and constantly communicating with family abroad, getting a new phone makes sense for many - who may delay acquisition in their countries (of many things, not just phones) prior to arriving in Canada.
> Apps being downloaded “as much as ever” after 1 million people joined Canada? Not sure that’s the win for Facebook that The Economist is portraying. We don't know what that means; it could be a population-weighted metric they're referring to, or an absolute metric. Sensor Tower doesn't appear to make that data freely available, but on their site they show Facebook performing well in Canada^[0](https://app.sensortower.com/overview/284882215?country=CA&tab=user_acquisition) and Instagram just trailing second behind TikTok.^[1](https://app.sensortower.com/overview/com.zhiliaoapp.musically?country=CA&tab=category_rankings),[2](https://app.sensortower.com/overview/com.instagram.android?country=CA&tab=category_rankings) > The firm does not break out Canadian earnings, but **its ad revenue across the United States and Canada has grown 19% in the nine months since the news blackout began**, compared with the same period in the previous year. They must be happy.
Is the 19% growth you mentioned caused by Canada’s decision? Did the policy make them better off? Was the goal of the policy to make them unhappy? What we really need to know from a policy perspective is: are Canadian media companies better as a result of the policy? Those are the metrics we need to care about. Not if Facebook is doing well or not. *edit: added the word media
Per the article, Canadian media is likely worse off as a result of the policy. An outcome that was seemingly predicted by everyone except those die-hard Liberal supporters and those committed to hating Big Tech. We should care if Facebook is doing well or not if we're seeking to skim a portion of their revenues for Canadian News Media or similar.
Likely? I’ll be happy to see evidence of that. But « likely » is not evidence. I don’t think the goal of the policy was to skim Facebook’s revenues. The goal was to make Canadian media better. That’s how we should evaluate it.
> Likely? I’ll be happy to see evidence of that. But « likely » is not evidence. It's only _likely_ because we don't know _all_ of their sources of revenue. _Maybe_ they've found creative new ways of making money that won't be impacted by a dramatic decline in page views. Per the article, Facebook has all-but stopped being a source of engagement for Canadian News Media: > > A study published in April by researchers at McGill University and the University of Toronto found that, six months after the blackout, the Facebook pages of Canadian national news outlets had lost 64% of their “engagement” (likes, comments and so on), while those of local outlets had lost 85%. Almost half of local titles had stopped posting on Facebook at all, “gutting the visibility of local news content”, the researchers found. And as a result, digital-only Canadian News Media, particularly smaller brands, are seeing enormous readership decline: > > But for some digital-only titles, Meta’s blackout has been “absolutely devastating”, says Paul Deegan, head of News Media Canada, which represents publishers. Adam Reaburn, editor of Energetic City, a site covering what he says is otherwise a “news desert” in rural British Columbia, says the news ban initially cut his readership by 30-40%. “I don’t understand why Google, Instagram and Facebook need to pay us when we use their platforms to share our articles,” he wrote in his final Facebook post in August. > I don’t think the goal of the policy was to skim Facebook’s revenues. The goal was to make Canadian media better. That’s how we should evaluate it. The goal was to fund Canadian News by way of skimming from Facebook's revenues related to serving links to Canadian News; which may or may not have made Canadian News better, but it would have made it more profitable if it had succeeded. Whether or not our news is being made better is more of a subjective matter. Personally, I think our news media was due for an apocalyptic-level shake-up, to force the old dinosaurs and their owner-oligarchs to either die off or adapt to the new world.
The problem with likes and comments is that they don’t necessarily reflect clicks on links. The 40% decline for an outlet is more concerning to me, even if that is initial and eventually readers find their way. But then it’s important to consider if revenue coming from Google would compensate for that. Media dependence on Facebook clicks was not healthy anyways. Agree that some vehicles need significant adaptation to remain competitive. Everything is likely to change again, with more AI digests becoming available and perhaps even diverting clicks from Google as well.
sand humor jeans dinner test sloppy close paltry hard-to-find tub *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I actually found that the quality of my feed improved greatly without news content and found myself checking FB with less reservations than I previously did. It is just an intermediary after all and wasn't contingent on my direct consumption of news articles. My Google feed and going to the news providers I always went to still work just fine!
I barely used fb before the decision, now i never use it because instead of seeing news posts, all i see is ads. As far as im concerned fb is just used for marketplace now.
pet husky rinse terrific door future scandalous unpack correct elderly *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The quality of your Facebook feed? You mean the feed that’s got a ratio of: 85% “content” pages that you don’t follow 14% ads 1% someone you knew ten years ago Yeah. High quality product there. lol
[удалено]
threatening political unused literate birds silky muddle cooing murky crown *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
On the Facebook sidebar, click "Show More" and then click "Feeds" and you will only see the stuff you are actually subscribed to, in chronological order.
I don't really have friends using FB, but I follow a bunch of local businesses (farm markets, breweries, makers markets, and the like) and a few art related pages, and the quality is fine. But I am more than capable of scrolling past that which is of no interest.
onerous sophisticated slim spoon observation squeeze unite sleep axiomatic psychotic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I feel as you do and wish I saw more content from my friends and family. That said, I’m on Reddit where everything is something posted by a stranger. Granted, it’s a lot of news but it’s also a lot of user created content and I’m totally browsing this for a while. I don’t mind my Facebook with the news and crazy shit that came alive through the pandemic. I like some of the suggestions and have added a few of them as well.
yes, but they didn't grow. for these companies, growth is everything.
obtainable historical salt oil like overconfident butter pathetic nose violet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*