[gspencley]

As a Canadian this is disappointing to me. I disagree with the law. Actually, disagree is too soft. I think it is absolutely ridiculous. By Google agreeing to pay even one penny, it removes a large incentive for our politicans and regulations to realize that this was ill-conceived and to come to their senses and repeal.

[freedomben]

I'm not Canadian but have many friends and family there having worked and lived there in the past.

I couldn't agree more. The current gov went way overboard with this, and by Google caving they have just guaranteed more of the same. There's no incentive from everyday people anymore for politicians to care about this.

I'm usually pretty in-the-middle on issues, but in this case it seems ridiculous. Google is giving them a valuable service for free by sending traffic their way. If it wouldn't violate neutrality, they should pay Google not the other way around[1]. A quick logic check helps reinforce this: If appearing in the search results were a bad thing for them, then why would these companies hire SEO experts to bolster their search rankings?

[1]: Note this is regarding the "tax" for serving a link, not talking about a full preview or AI summary or something, on which I'm much more sympathetic to the site owners and think they have a legitimate case worthy of debate

[SECProto]

> As a Canadian this is disappointing to me. I disagree with the law.

As a Canadian, this is exciting to me. I agree strongly with the goals of the law (while holding nitpicks about the actual wording). I think the fact that Google came to an agreement shows that they don't have a fundamental issue with the law either (or they could've just withdrawn from our market, like Meta). It's a win for independent media in Canada, and thereby, for all Canadians.

[gspencley]

> I think the fact that Google came to an agreement shows that they don't have a fundamental issue with the law either (or they could've just withdrawn from our market, like Meta).

Or they calculated that the agreement is the less expensive option. We're both speculating, of course, but it's possible that they figure that not linking to news in Canada would put them at a [even greater] competitive disadvantage which could potentially cost them more in lost business as Canadian users and customers seek alternatives.

Alternatives, I might add, that are not unfairly targeted by a law granting regulators arbitrary powers to target and penalize some companies over others.

I also want to point out that the conclusion that Google has no issue with the bill because of the agreement reached is another reason I'm disappointed... because of course that's how it will be interpreted by supporters of the bill, and they will hammer that message home with a very heavy hand: "Look! Even our victims support what we're doing to them!"

[Dylan16807]

> I think the fact that Google came to an agreement shows that they don't have a fundamental issue with the law either (or they could've just withdrawn from our market, like Meta).

That's a strange thing to conclude.

If the grocery store wanted to charge me 10 cents per visit for the air I breathe, I would have fundamental issues with that, but I'd still probably pay. And I'm far more motivated by emotion than a publicly traded company.

> I agree strongly with the goals of the law

I like the goals too. But I think the method is terrible, and that matters.

[SECProto]

> If the grocery store wanted to charge me 10 cents per visit for the air I breathe, I would have fundamental issues with that, but I'd still probably pay.

Really? You'd just pay it? (maybe negotiate them down to 6 cents like google did then pay it?) I'd probably just stop going to that grocery store (eg like meta no longer serving Canadian media)

[Dylan16807]

I would call it stupid, and point out that it's just an entrance fee. Like pointing out this is a special tax for specific companies to prop up news organizations.

But I'm willing to pay an entrance fee. It's like Costco but dumber. I wouldn't change stores over such a small number.

[glerk]

> I agree strongly with the goals of the law

What exactly do you agree with? This is clearly just a shakedown and they're making very little effort to disguise it. Are you a shareholder of the corporations that will benefit from this arrangement?

[SECProto]

I agree with shakedowns of all large multinational corporations, yes. I'm not a shareholder of anything.

[glerk]

Alright, fair enough. I disagree fundamentally with this way of exerting power, but I respect your honesty.

[laweijfmvo]

How does the Canadian law compare to the Australian one? As I understand it, the Australian law had a lot of influence from people like Rupert Murdoch, specifically targeted "big tech" companies like Meta and Google, and didn't benefit small[er]/independent news organizations.

[wintogreen74]

The biggest difference on the surface is the AU law focuses on aggregators providing summaries that remove the need to visit the source, where the CA law targets just references, aka links.