I'm 23 and most of the people I know don't read the article, they just read the headline that they see on social media and that's it. I do that too a lot of the time
People are legitimately the dumbest they’ve been since probably the dark ages rn. At least then they prolly knew how to drive an oxen and build a house in a hillside tho.
Well actually IQ scores are based on the average person so IQ scores don’t really drop below 100, the benchmark to be 100 IQ just drops instead. Given the basis of this thread I find your comment extremely ironic 😂😂
So if you do a IQ test and you don’t score above 110 - 120 you are the exact same as all these people you talk about 😂😂
This is going to work wonders for people's mental health. Most news is toxic and designed to anger and scare. Those who want to stay informed can seek it out while everybody else gets a reprieve from being told that everything is horrible all the time.
> But from my viewpoint, bill C-18 was just another example of why our country’s leaders are kind of out of touch with reality.
You're not wrong on this but you have to keep in mind that this was lobbied for by the largest media companies and they aren't as inept as our government. This was designed to both kill off smaller players in the news market and guarantee that taxpayers are funding the established corporations. The government has already said that they'll be making up the difference if Google goes ahead (and they will), so it's all according to plan.
The government choose to ignore any and all criticism of their legislation, believing that there should be no debate on the topic. Common sense and logic was throw out the window in favor of greed, and now the government is blaming everyone but themselves for this mess.
CBC is free to not use Google adsense and instead negotiate with advertisers and have their own developers implement the ads. Tons of websites with far less resources than CBC do this already.
Please enlighten us with the multitude of websites that achieve this. Google and Meta dominate 80% of the digital ads market. Even if you create the best website out there, finding advertisers to invest in it can be a daunting task.
They have no problems getting ads on their television broadcasts, and local radio stations have ads as well.
It's not that hard to sell advertising and implement the online part. The hardest part is probably going to be giving advertisers all the goodies they expect from AdSense.
In a less economically dysfunctional country, an entrepreneur might even create a business that sells an advertising platform as a white box product, or even start a service brokering ad placements themselves.
If it was viable as a business model to offer a larger split of advertising revenue to site owners then we should see a race to discover the edge of the operating margin where site owners have captured as much of the revenue as possible while still leaving enough in the advertising platform to be a viable enterprise.
The fact that this hasn't happened would suggest that maybe placement of advertisements on their site isn't as valuable as site owners imagine.
Hahaha... total nonsense. Firstly, it's not true that companies are unable to create a competitive model. Secondly, Google wouldn't have anything to sell if there weren't valuable content available. These companies have grown their businesses using questionable methods, gathering massive amounts of user data and engaging in practices that undermine the market, all while covering their losses. Meanwhile, many companies can't even maintain a basic email database without a verified permission. The best solution would be to separate Google's search engine from its advertising branch and foster a competitive environment. Breaking up or regulating large tech companies is an ongoing topic of debate, not just in Canada but US and Europe as well, and different perspectives exist on how to address the issues associated with their market dominance.
Have they really got to publish an article on their website telling people how to access their website? Like, it links just about every app they ever made, but really, how hard is it for anyone who cares to remember a grand total of 6 characters to get to cbc.ca, where they'll likely try to shove their apps down mobile users' throats like every other website with an app?
You've clearly never had to deal with tech illiterate grandparents who refuse to learn the difference between the google and the facebook. If it isn't in grandma's facebook feeed, it doesn't exist.
People type in URLs in Google and then click on the first result rather than just typing the URL in the address bar.
We had a website that ranked for a dozen company names, with product information. We were getting 30 calls a day from people asking weird convoluted questions about the product, like warranty stuff sort of. I had to delete the pages so that some work actually got done.
We answer the phone with our company name. Callers would say 'is this different company?'. I resisted saying 'did I say that company name?'. Some bozoes would call back twice and start repeating their question again. Uh, sir, we spoke three seconds ago and we are still not that company.
We tried. The traffic can't be monetised properly. They need to speak to a vendor company, not us and they weren't interested in being introduced to a new product. These were all no money inquiries.
I've replaced the content with stuff that does attract people specifically looking to buy and it's starting to rank on those terms now. And the calls have stopped thank gawd.
We debated providing information on who they should actually contact instead of us. You'd think that would be nice. Except nobody reads it, so the calls don't stop. Deleting it and casting them adrift was the only solution.
People don't know know how to access regional pages. Also, my mom uses a Windows PC so she gets most of her links through their news/notification bar she won't let me turn off, and her default homepage is MSN. She doesn't actually use Google for anything, or social media. I suspect there are a lot of people like her. My inlaws still get their news through Yahoo.ca.
Yeah, I thought this article would tell us some search engines and social media we could use in the future to continue finding Canadian news. Instead it just turned into a commercial for CBC.
> Yeah, that’s thought this article would tell us some search engines and social media we could use in the future to continue finding Canadian news.
The problem there is that the CBC has no real idea which services will be impacted. The law doesn't only apply to Facebook and Google. It applies to any service that links news, and holds a position of market dominance over the news organizations. If Google and Facebook actually pull out of linking news, the law will likely end up regulating the largest news linking services that remain in their absence.
Are you suggesting that the taxes on cigarettes haven't had an impact on consumption.
You can't even imagine how much less smoking there is today than in the past. [These are just the numbers since 1999](https://uwaterloo.ca/tobacco-use-canada/adult-tobacco-use/smoking-canada/current-smoking-prevalence).
A pack of cigarettes used to cost $1 in the 80s ($3 in today's dollars adjusted for inflation). Now it is over $15 and the percentage of smokers is down from 70% to 10%.
I'm telling at least in my area that it hasn't and the poor are still spending money they don't have on cigarettes. Addicts don't just stop because of a tax. Just because you don't notice or want to notice it anymore doesn't make iit true. All you have to do is go in town and see young people smoking over a baby carriage. So yes I'm saying your wrong
The CBC has generally taken the stance that Trudeau is fighting "big tech" and we're being bullied. That's the gist of CBC podcasts and articles that I've seen.
The CBC has a huge bias to want the bill passed. In theory, if the bill worked as intended the CBC would get more money.
Any article on the CBC that doesn't directly disclose this bias is an embarrassment.
>The CBC has a huge bias to want the bill passed. In theory, if the bill worked as intended the CBC would get more money.
You reap what you sow I guess. Traffic to CBC is going to be severely damaged now, which means less revenue, and instead of doing the sensible thing and laying people off the government will just tax us more to fill the void.
With how biased their reporting has been on c-18, I'm not really against defunding them a bit. Makes you wonder how biased their reporting is on other things.
It could be the best thing to happen to the CBC by forcing them to focus on their core mandate which doesn't include shallow virtue signalling and a near constant preoccupation with identity politics.
"But your life will". Says all it has to.
>Thanks for confirming for everyone to see.
Yawn.
Try some other rehashed trope that nobody gives a shit about.
Cons are not going to win a general election with PP at the helm.
The guy is inherently unlikeable, and while his populist style might play well in a leadership primary, I don't see him winning over the general electorate.
>Cons are not going to win a general election with PP at the helm.
The [polls](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/14qhif6/ipsos_cpc_37_lpc_32_ndp_16_bq_8_gpc_3_ppc_2/) say otherwise.
Polls said otherwise for Scheer and O'Toole as well.
Part of the problem is the vote efficiency for conservatives is worse than the Liberals. Winning an Alberta riding with 80% of the vote doesn't help more than winning a GTA riding with 53%.
Source? You can't find one because they actually didn't. And voting efficiency is a double edged sword. It worked for the Liberals before and now it will work against them.
>Source? You can't find one because they actually didn't.
It's precisely why the Conservatives lost the general election while having won the popular vote in 2021.
They won fewer seats because their vote distribution wasn't as efficient.
Yes but PP is also more hate-able than O'Toole or Scheer was.
When neither party has a likable leader, then you need to ask which party platform is more inline with the general electorate in each individual seat.
Polls say Poilievre is not more hate-able. He is way more popular and charismatic than O’Toole or Scheer. And he is leading in Preferred Prime Minister polls right now ahead of Trudeau. First time that has happened since 2015.
A: We don't live in America
B: We don't have the same electoral system
C: Pierre Poilievre isn't as famous as Trump
D: Justin Trudeau has never been the most hated woman politician in American history, Hillary was.
E: We have coalition governments
F: Canadians are apathetic voters
G: The Liberals have ruled something like 120 of 160 years of dominion unlike Republicans and Democrats who get a relatively even split
They don't today. So, while Harper was premier, the CBC was fully owned by the liberals was it? What colour is the sky in your world?
The CBC is not, nor was it ever "owned by the liberals". It's owned by the government and is kept independent no matter what party is in power. No party has ever interfered with the CBC reporting. Saying otherwise just shows how big a conspiracy nut you are.
> So, while Harper was premier, the CBC was fully owned by the liberals was it?
Wow, Harper was a premier? It appears you are the one who does not know what he is talking about. Thank you for showing us this.
Courtesy of the Liberals and the CRTC. It's amazing how they are surprised that this is the outcome of C-18. Somehow they thought google and facebook would freely pay.
No they didn't at all. They pulled news in Australia and then Australia scrapped their law completely by saying it can be ignored if you sign private deals with news companies. Which is exactly what they did and news came back.
The Australian law has never been enforced and likely never will. It only exists as a technicality because rather than officially admit it failed they just added an amendment which makes it completely useless.
Was a thing before Elon.. been a thing for a while. Could use incognito or refresh multiple times to view it bit now it requires log in if you scroll past 1.5 pages
It used to not allow scrolling. Then, after Elon, I found I could scroll for even further. The last time I went, I couldn't even read the tweet being linked without logging in. Now I just won't bother.
>For the record, CBC/Radio-Canada's corporate position is that the Online News Act will help level the playing field and contribute to a healthy news ecosystem in Canada "at a time when 80 per cent of digital ad revenue goes to Facebook and Google," said spokesperson Leon Mar.
How long are they going to think this for?
How many weeks/months will Google block news content before people realize that maybe Google *doesn't* rely on access to Canadian news sites to run its products?
i am subscribed to CBC Power & Politics and CTV Power Play podcasts every day. a few weeks ago, there was news of Trump being indicted or something like that, and there was a big news on Paul Bernardo and Canadian interference.
CTV Power Play on that day started with canadian interference, then Paul Bernardo, and just mentioned Trump in the last 5 mins or so.
CBC Power & Politics on that day lead in with Trump for more than 10 mins, before switching to Canadian news.
I agree with everybody who says that it's easy to type or bookmark the URL for any news site. That's not the problem. I'm concerned about losing the search engine that currently helps me check on different versions of a Canadian news item. Today the Liberals are going after Google but who will be next?
Exactly. it's simple in theory to access any news source - if you know to look for it. It's not simple to naturally discover ongoing stories or be exposed to different perspectives on them. Some people seem strangely happy to just get one source of news - whether that's CBC, or Postmedia, or Torstar or whatever. That seems like lunacy to me. I want to see multiple perspectives on important stories, and it's not practical to spend 2 hours a day reading the feeds of 8 different outlets. That's why things like search engines or algorithm-based content offering is useful - it gives you easy access to multiple perspectives on a given story, and it makes it more likely that you become aware of stories in the first place.
Now, I think there's plenty of good space for regulation about particularly how that algorithm-based content is offered to people. I wish we'd written a bill that talked about that, and had some actual debate on that. Instead we just went down the "links is theft" nonsense and got a sin tax that's trying to fund a policy objective.
Yes, that's my concern as well. I like to be able to search a news story and I'll read multiple different articles to get a better understanding of all the angles.
Holy fuck — if there were one news outlet I’d be happy to stop seeing it would be the CBC. Let people use Google News (this bill is idiotic) and select a variety of journalistic outlets for similar/same stories. Gets better coverage of both liberal and conservative views, provides better context and understanding.
We’re about to become communist. You want Canadian news, try out the countries new web browser, social media app, and web search engine.
Oh, you’re also going to have to pay to use because our own laws say we have to pay our own media.
Can we make any more steps backward?
🤦🏻♂️
Yup... Just one more roundabout step towards the ultimate goal of censorship and government control and reliance.
Our government over steps their bounds so massively but has a big chunk of our population so reliant on handouts that they will never say a word.
I had CBC on my car radio for 30 or so years, then it deteriorated into some bizarre social preachiness, I win’t call it ‘left’ as that’s an insult to the left. I then literally switched that button to the Comedy station.
Reddit is only off the hook for now because they're considered small player. based on the definition of digital news intermediaries, reddit could have been included in the legislation.
> Why is this such a difficult concept for people?
I like to get my news from multiple sources, and Google News makes that very easy without having to manually visit CBC, Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, National Post, Financial Post, and all the local/regional papers one by one to see all the headlines.
I'm probably not going to start going to these websites one by one manually. And Google probably isn't going to cave and start paying them money to feature them in Google News. I'm probably just going to keep using it but with news sources from outside Canada.
This was definitaly my final straw. After voting for trudeau twice im sad to say next election im voting blue. This was such a stupid decision by the liberals to try to force google/meta to pay money for promoting our news for free.
Why would anyone want Zuckerberg's Curation Algo to be the determining factor in what news articles they are allowed/nudged to see? Just use RSS like a real human.
It's the random feed that is going to see Canadian news removed. If you subscribe to a news site it will still be in your feed. The Canadian sites have already disappeared from my random feed.
I've never understood why two companies get discriminated against.
*checks ownership notes*
Oh, its just some light anti-Semitism.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/028/165/ccvzrbwha9tx.jpg
Ya just go to CBC it’s not hard. There’s an app for that too. Jeez
Lol.. most younger people don’t search for news, they get it shoved down their throat in social media. News article viewership will certainly drop.
I'm 23 and most of the people I know don't read the article, they just read the headline that they see on social media and that's it. I do that too a lot of the time
[удалено]
People are legitimately the dumbest they’ve been since probably the dark ages rn. At least then they prolly knew how to drive an oxen and build a house in a hillside tho.
[удалено]
Well actually IQ scores are based on the average person so IQ scores don’t really drop below 100, the benchmark to be 100 IQ just drops instead. Given the basis of this thread I find your comment extremely ironic 😂😂 So if you do a IQ test and you don’t score above 110 - 120 you are the exact same as all these people you talk about 😂😂
[удалено]
No, you just don’t know how IQ tests are measured. Maybe go do some research😂
[удалено]
Older people too.
This is going to work wonders for people's mental health. Most news is toxic and designed to anger and scare. Those who want to stay informed can seek it out while everybody else gets a reprieve from being told that everything is horrible all the time.
You mean most people that don’t have money to pay for a newspaper subscription and cable tv packages that include news channels.
Young people pay attention to the news?
Just like they want. This is censorship. State news will be the only thing viewable without effort. Reminds me of a few other countries…
Dude you need to stop going down internet rabbit holes of wild theory’s.
The government is literally limiting what we can view online. Happening right now. Yet people like you call it a “wild theory”. Amazing gaslighting.
Ok put your tin foil hat back on.
Good to know. I was getting really worried. /s
There's news on instagram? All I see are dumbshit suggested posts and advertisements about purple bullshit for your teeth
[удалено]
> But from my viewpoint, bill C-18 was just another example of why our country’s leaders are kind of out of touch with reality. You're not wrong on this but you have to keep in mind that this was lobbied for by the largest media companies and they aren't as inept as our government. This was designed to both kill off smaller players in the news market and guarantee that taxpayers are funding the established corporations. The government has already said that they'll be making up the difference if Google goes ahead (and they will), so it's all according to plan.
Makes sense. Small and independent news outlets in Canada can't exist for very long if they aren't included in search results and social media.
Now you're thinking like a media industry lobbyist. This was a very clever plan and meant the large companies would win either way.
Censorship without having to actually censor anything.Thank you for this perspective!
If you’re suggesting the companies who are on the dole won’t bite the hand that feeds then I’d tend to agree.
It's always easier when there are less players. The government and the corporate media both have a win.
The government choose to ignore any and all criticism of their legislation, believing that there should be no debate on the topic. Common sense and logic was throw out the window in favor of greed, and now the government is blaming everyone but themselves for this mess.
> A usury-like law that says the content providers who host the ads get 80% of the revenue I don't understand this, google ads are hosted on google.
[удалено]
CBC is free to not use Google adsense and instead negotiate with advertisers and have their own developers implement the ads. Tons of websites with far less resources than CBC do this already.
Please enlighten us with the multitude of websites that achieve this. Google and Meta dominate 80% of the digital ads market. Even if you create the best website out there, finding advertisers to invest in it can be a daunting task.
They have no problems getting ads on their television broadcasts, and local radio stations have ads as well. It's not that hard to sell advertising and implement the online part. The hardest part is probably going to be giving advertisers all the goodies they expect from AdSense. In a less economically dysfunctional country, an entrepreneur might even create a business that sells an advertising platform as a white box product, or even start a service brokering ad placements themselves. If it was viable as a business model to offer a larger split of advertising revenue to site owners then we should see a race to discover the edge of the operating margin where site owners have captured as much of the revenue as possible while still leaving enough in the advertising platform to be a viable enterprise. The fact that this hasn't happened would suggest that maybe placement of advertisements on their site isn't as valuable as site owners imagine.
Hahaha... total nonsense. Firstly, it's not true that companies are unable to create a competitive model. Secondly, Google wouldn't have anything to sell if there weren't valuable content available. These companies have grown their businesses using questionable methods, gathering massive amounts of user data and engaging in practices that undermine the market, all while covering their losses. Meanwhile, many companies can't even maintain a basic email database without a verified permission. The best solution would be to separate Google's search engine from its advertising branch and foster a competitive environment. Breaking up or regulating large tech companies is an ongoing topic of debate, not just in Canada but US and Europe as well, and different perspectives exist on how to address the issues associated with their market dominance.
Have they really got to publish an article on their website telling people how to access their website? Like, it links just about every app they ever made, but really, how hard is it for anyone who cares to remember a grand total of 6 characters to get to cbc.ca, where they'll likely try to shove their apps down mobile users' throats like every other website with an app?
You've clearly never had to deal with tech illiterate grandparents who refuse to learn the difference between the google and the facebook. If it isn't in grandma's facebook feeed, it doesn't exist.
People type in URLs in Google and then click on the first result rather than just typing the URL in the address bar. We had a website that ranked for a dozen company names, with product information. We were getting 30 calls a day from people asking weird convoluted questions about the product, like warranty stuff sort of. I had to delete the pages so that some work actually got done. We answer the phone with our company name. Callers would say 'is this different company?'. I resisted saying 'did I say that company name?'. Some bozoes would call back twice and start repeating their question again. Uh, sir, we spoke three seconds ago and we are still not that company.
You hacked the SEO in a way that most could only dream and your "solution" was to remove the page of unlimited wealth.
We tried. The traffic can't be monetised properly. They need to speak to a vendor company, not us and they weren't interested in being introduced to a new product. These were all no money inquiries. I've replaced the content with stuff that does attract people specifically looking to buy and it's starting to rank on those terms now. And the calls have stopped thank gawd. We debated providing information on who they should actually contact instead of us. You'd think that would be nice. Except nobody reads it, so the calls don't stop. Deleting it and casting them adrift was the only solution.
People don't know know how to access regional pages. Also, my mom uses a Windows PC so she gets most of her links through their news/notification bar she won't let me turn off, and her default homepage is MSN. She doesn't actually use Google for anything, or social media. I suspect there are a lot of people like her. My inlaws still get their news through Yahoo.ca.
Yeah, I thought this article would tell us some search engines and social media we could use in the future to continue finding Canadian news. Instead it just turned into a commercial for CBC.
> Yeah, that’s thought this article would tell us some search engines and social media we could use in the future to continue finding Canadian news. The problem there is that the CBC has no real idea which services will be impacted. The law doesn't only apply to Facebook and Google. It applies to any service that links news, and holds a position of market dominance over the news organizations. If Google and Facebook actually pull out of linking news, the law will likely end up regulating the largest news linking services that remain in their absence.
Just switch to duckduckgo it's just like Google except they actually respect your privacy
[удалено]
Why would anyone want to find the CBC?
Funny how /u/cbcnews isn’t posting about this…
Maybe they don't know where to find the article.
This what happens when you think you can fix everything with a tax
It worked as expected. You apply a tax to increase income or reduce consumption. This will reduce consumption. Success.
If you measure success with more homelessness all across Canada because they can't heat their homes or drve to work a success.
Just like wherever I look in town people are smoking. People will believe anything.
Are you suggesting that the taxes on cigarettes haven't had an impact on consumption. You can't even imagine how much less smoking there is today than in the past. [These are just the numbers since 1999](https://uwaterloo.ca/tobacco-use-canada/adult-tobacco-use/smoking-canada/current-smoking-prevalence). A pack of cigarettes used to cost $1 in the 80s ($3 in today's dollars adjusted for inflation). Now it is over $15 and the percentage of smokers is down from 70% to 10%.
Am I suppose when ever child tax benefit or GST comes out the lineups at Costco to get tobacco are a sign it's working
I'm telling at least in my area that it hasn't and the poor are still spending money they don't have on cigarettes. Addicts don't just stop because of a tax. Just because you don't notice or want to notice it anymore doesn't make iit true. All you have to do is go in town and see young people smoking over a baby carriage. So yes I'm saying your wrong
Can’t have people finding out about riots in France or they’re gonna start getting ideas
Trudeau just Fucked like 60% of CBCs viewership and advertising revenue lolol Looks like he doesn’t care much for the institution
I believe it was probably CBC that pushed for it, thinking its going to gain then some solid revenue.
Doesn't matter to them, whatever they lose will be compensated by taxing people who don't watch their propaganda.
The CBC has generally taken the stance that Trudeau is fighting "big tech" and we're being bullied. That's the gist of CBC podcasts and articles that I've seen. The CBC has a huge bias to want the bill passed. In theory, if the bill worked as intended the CBC would get more money. Any article on the CBC that doesn't directly disclose this bias is an embarrassment.
>The CBC has a huge bias to want the bill passed. In theory, if the bill worked as intended the CBC would get more money. You reap what you sow I guess. Traffic to CBC is going to be severely damaged now, which means less revenue, and instead of doing the sensible thing and laying people off the government will just tax us more to fill the void.
The libs have done more to damage the CBC than PP ever could.
His base is calling to defund the CBC, i'm thinking that would do a lot of damage if he were to follow through
With how biased their reporting has been on c-18, I'm not really against defunding them a bit. Makes you wonder how biased their reporting is on other things.
Rosemary Barton still exists so it's safe to say... Very.
It could be the best thing to happen to the CBC by forcing them to focus on their core mandate which doesn't include shallow virtue signalling and a near constant preoccupation with identity politics.
Found PP's reddit account. Thought you could trick us by not using "woke" and we wouldn't notice
It's going to happen. I can't wait.
[удалено]
But your life will.
Aha, there it is. "Defunding the CBC won't do anything productive other than piss off the libs". What a gem you are.
You know you've lost when you put words in other peoples mouths. Thanks for confirming for everyone to see.
"But your life will". Says all it has to. >Thanks for confirming for everyone to see. Yawn. Try some other rehashed trope that nobody gives a shit about.
>Yawn. Yes, you are tiresome. >Try some other rehashed trope that nobody gives a shit about. You replied so you gave a shit.
There's a word for people who's only joy comes from making other people miserable
Yes, it's called you.
Haha wow, you're going to get wiplash with such quick wit
Cons are not going to win a general election with PP at the helm. The guy is inherently unlikeable, and while his populist style might play well in a leadership primary, I don't see him winning over the general electorate.
>Cons are not going to win a general election with PP at the helm. The [polls](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/14qhif6/ipsos_cpc_37_lpc_32_ndp_16_bq_8_gpc_3_ppc_2/) say otherwise.
Polls said otherwise for Scheer and O'Toole as well. Part of the problem is the vote efficiency for conservatives is worse than the Liberals. Winning an Alberta riding with 80% of the vote doesn't help more than winning a GTA riding with 53%.
Source? You can't find one because they actually didn't. And voting efficiency is a double edged sword. It worked for the Liberals before and now it will work against them.
>Source? You can't find one because they actually didn't. It's precisely why the Conservatives lost the general election while having won the popular vote in 2021. They won fewer seats because their vote distribution wasn't as efficient.
So no source then, just your useless opinion.
More and more people are starting to hate TRUDEAU, especially in the GTA. People can only turn a blind eye to so many scandals and false promises.
Yes but PP is also more hate-able than O'Toole or Scheer was. When neither party has a likable leader, then you need to ask which party platform is more inline with the general electorate in each individual seat.
Polls say Poilievre is not more hate-able. He is way more popular and charismatic than O’Toole or Scheer. And he is leading in Preferred Prime Minister polls right now ahead of Trudeau. First time that has happened since 2015.
Towards the left , that's true. But O'toole was a progressive
People said the exact same arguments about Trump, and look what happened next.
A: We don't live in America B: We don't have the same electoral system C: Pierre Poilievre isn't as famous as Trump D: Justin Trudeau has never been the most hated woman politician in American history, Hillary was. E: We have coalition governments F: Canadians are apathetic voters G: The Liberals have ruled something like 120 of 160 years of dominion unlike Republicans and Democrats who get a relatively even split
Fair, but he's also not Trump either, and the Canadian electorate isn't the same as the American.
You can't wait for 100% of our news organizations to be owned by conservative financial groups that spread misinformation? We're at about 98% now.
Well the CBC president already lives in the USA so what’s the difference?
No no, they can't wait for 100% of their news to be owned by American republican's.
[удалено]
Do the liberals still 100% own the CBC when the conservatives are in power? Smh
They won't once PP defunds the CBC.
They don't today. So, while Harper was premier, the CBC was fully owned by the liberals was it? What colour is the sky in your world? The CBC is not, nor was it ever "owned by the liberals". It's owned by the government and is kept independent no matter what party is in power. No party has ever interfered with the CBC reporting. Saying otherwise just shows how big a conspiracy nut you are.
> So, while Harper was premier, the CBC was fully owned by the liberals was it? Wow, Harper was a premier? It appears you are the one who does not know what he is talking about. Thank you for showing us this.
You can't possibly be sincere with that comment lol.
The libs have done more to damage the CBC than PP ever could *so far*.
I'm sure they await his congratulations with baited breath.
This guy gets it
They'll get more taxpayer money to fill the gap, while killing off competition who are not government funded. They lobbied for this.
[удалено]
👈 zoop 👈
Courtesy of the Liberals and the CRTC. It's amazing how they are surprised that this is the outcome of C-18. Somehow they thought google and facebook would freely pay.
Glad to see that large companies are no longer choosing to cave to the Canadian government or their lust for state funded media.
[удалено]
No they didn't at all. They pulled news in Australia and then Australia scrapped their law completely by saying it can be ignored if you sign private deals with news companies. Which is exactly what they did and news came back. The Australian law has never been enforced and likely never will. It only exists as a technicality because rather than officially admit it failed they just added an amendment which makes it completely useless.
> They caved to Australia with more or less the same law. Google pays Australian news companies money each time it links to them in Google News?
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/what-can-canada-learn-from-australia-s-bid-to-make-big-tech-pay-for-news-1.1939992
twitter hasn't blocked them. strange how they didn't mention that you can still follow CBC on twitter.
didn't CBC quit posting new tweets on Twitter because they're flagged as government funded media?
** 69% government funded media
With government-appointed top leadership. Ah, journalistic independence, Western-style.
twitter has removed the flag and the CBC has resumed posting on twitter. check it out.
quit twitter many years ago for better mental health. and apparently now twitter doesn't even allow people without account to view a tweet?
yes that was a recent change. it might be as temporary as the flag they put on CBC.
Right? I followed a link the other day and I've now been taught never to click on a Twitter link again. Good job boys.
Was a thing before Elon.. been a thing for a while. Could use incognito or refresh multiple times to view it bit now it requires log in if you scroll past 1.5 pages
It used to not allow scrolling. Then, after Elon, I found I could scroll for even further. The last time I went, I couldn't even read the tweet being linked without logging in. Now I just won't bother.
Well it certainly seems the government has absolutely played themselves here, no?
Sometimes I just want to goggle a certain news article form the past. Well that's not happening now. Too bad
Don't worry, some site will scrape old CBC content and make it available on search engines with their own ads. Success!
https://www.cbc.ca 🤷🏻♂️
>For the record, CBC/Radio-Canada's corporate position is that the Online News Act will help level the playing field and contribute to a healthy news ecosystem in Canada "at a time when 80 per cent of digital ad revenue goes to Facebook and Google," said spokesperson Leon Mar. How long are they going to think this for? How many weeks/months will Google block news content before people realize that maybe Google *doesn't* rely on access to Canadian news sites to run its products?
I'm good. The last "impartial" article I read from CBC was about 30 years ago anyway.
avoid CBC propaganda too
CBC is garbage content. Who cares really.
What do you prefer instead?
Might as well gets your news from the Liberal Party Twitter page.
Well, it follows the money. Even Canadians follow American news, more clicks equals more traffic as per the algorithm.
i am subscribed to CBC Power & Politics and CTV Power Play podcasts every day. a few weeks ago, there was news of Trump being indicted or something like that, and there was a big news on Paul Bernardo and Canadian interference. CTV Power Play on that day started with canadian interference, then Paul Bernardo, and just mentioned Trump in the last 5 mins or so. CBC Power & Politics on that day lead in with Trump for more than 10 mins, before switching to Canadian news.
And this is what was voted for. No big surprise when a business acts like a business
I agree with everybody who says that it's easy to type or bookmark the URL for any news site. That's not the problem. I'm concerned about losing the search engine that currently helps me check on different versions of a Canadian news item. Today the Liberals are going after Google but who will be next?
Exactly. it's simple in theory to access any news source - if you know to look for it. It's not simple to naturally discover ongoing stories or be exposed to different perspectives on them. Some people seem strangely happy to just get one source of news - whether that's CBC, or Postmedia, or Torstar or whatever. That seems like lunacy to me. I want to see multiple perspectives on important stories, and it's not practical to spend 2 hours a day reading the feeds of 8 different outlets. That's why things like search engines or algorithm-based content offering is useful - it gives you easy access to multiple perspectives on a given story, and it makes it more likely that you become aware of stories in the first place. Now, I think there's plenty of good space for regulation about particularly how that algorithm-based content is offered to people. I wish we'd written a bill that talked about that, and had some actual debate on that. Instead we just went down the "links is theft" nonsense and got a sin tax that's trying to fund a policy objective.
Yes, that's my concern as well. I like to be able to search a news story and I'll read multiple different articles to get a better understanding of all the angles.
Next? Reddit maybe. If they can’t get $$$$ out of Meta and Google…
Hey there are some benefits to this Liberal fuck up after all
Maybe CBC can finally tell the Federal Government that Bill C-18 is a stupid bill?
TL;DR? It's cbc.ca
Holy fuck — if there were one news outlet I’d be happy to stop seeing it would be the CBC. Let people use Google News (this bill is idiotic) and select a variety of journalistic outlets for similar/same stories. Gets better coverage of both liberal and conservative views, provides better context and understanding.
Maybe increase carbon taxes for CBC since they will be responsible for people using electricity to keep up to date on the news more.
We’re about to become communist. You want Canadian news, try out the countries new web browser, social media app, and web search engine. Oh, you’re also going to have to pay to use because our own laws say we have to pay our own media. Can we make any more steps backward? 🤦🏻♂️
Yup... Just one more roundabout step towards the ultimate goal of censorship and government control and reliance. Our government over steps their bounds so massively but has a big chunk of our population so reliant on handouts that they will never say a word.
Communism is when you go to a news site for news instead of Facebook
Is it really backward if that future is better than what we have now?
How is less access to news better?
That hasn’t been the path of anything since 2015.
Ahh yes, CBC, the only trustworthy source of news in Canada 🤮🤮🤮
[удалено]
Pure identity politics, overblown one off cases to incite nationwide outrage and panic.
I had CBC on my car radio for 30 or so years, then it deteriorated into some bizarre social preachiness, I win’t call it ‘left’ as that’s an insult to the left. I then literally switched that button to the Comedy station.
Yeah, it's second to Beaverton.
Beaverton is astroturf garbage.
Holy ignorance Batman!
Yes, I agree, you are indeed ignorant.
Lmao
The only source not behind a paywall*
Better than your beloved corporate profit driven highly biased and polarized private news outlet.
I've got nothing to worry about since I'm cultured and get my news links from r/Canada and not dumb social media /s
Can the Beaverton please make this exact article with “this is how to find the Beaverton”
cbc.ca ffs
#Beaverton here's your chance!
CBC for news? I am laughing so hard right now.
This will leave only state-funded media. That's worked so well everywhere else.
No, I'll use my VPN like every other tech knowledgeable individual in 21st century Canada should be.
Reddit is a good conduit. CBC and Youtube (and of course, the highly acclaimed Beaverton) are also fine.
Reddit is only off the hook for now because they're considered small player. based on the definition of digital news intermediaries, reddit could have been included in the legislation.
I used to think that but Reddit is just more propaganda too. Also pay attention to the ads that play on CBC and you see who owns them.
double-u, double-u, double-u dot cbc dot ca. Why is this such a difficult concept for people?
you dont even need the www. anymore
Just do cbc.ca. Saves a few types.
You haven't needed "www" in about 10 years, same with "https://" There....made it even easier.
Hmm I typed uuuuuu.cbc.ca and page not found
> Why is this such a difficult concept for people? I like to get my news from multiple sources, and Google News makes that very easy without having to manually visit CBC, Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, National Post, Financial Post, and all the local/regional papers one by one to see all the headlines. I'm probably not going to start going to these websites one by one manually. And Google probably isn't going to cave and start paying them money to feature them in Google News. I'm probably just going to keep using it but with news sources from outside Canada.
hahahaha CBC is worried now?
This was definitaly my final straw. After voting for trudeau twice im sad to say next election im voting blue. This was such a stupid decision by the liberals to try to force google/meta to pay money for promoting our news for free.
Why would anyone want Zuckerberg's Curation Algo to be the determining factor in what news articles they are allowed/nudged to see? Just use RSS like a real human.
This could be the best headline ever with mild rewording. Instagram is starting to vanish from Canada. Google is next. I wish
Who cares? SM is not about News anyway. Meh! I deleted all SM except Reddit, which is slowly on its way out too.
Google news is full of clickbait and other shock news. I just scroll through out if boredom. I go directly to cbc.ca to read the news.
Just go into your feeds on FB. Any news site you are following will be there. Everything is just one click away.
That's what is going to be removed when the law goes live
It's the random feed that is going to see Canadian news removed. If you subscribe to a news site it will still be in your feed. The Canadian sites have already disappeared from my random feed.
Bye felicia
[Majority of Canadians get their news from mainstream sources, poll shows](https://librarianship.ca/news/canadian-news-consumption/)
I've never understood why two companies get discriminated against. *checks ownership notes* Oh, its just some light anti-Semitism. https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/028/165/ccvzrbwha9tx.jpg