[jsnell]

Except that the actual text of the law does not match your claim. It's about "facilitating access to news content by any means" including an "index" or "aggregation". Not about reproducing large chunks of the original content.

And it should be pretty obvious that this is the case. If your interpretation was correct, Meta would not have removed Canadian news sources entirely. They'd just have removed the previews (hell, the news companies could have removed the previews themselves; they already have the controls for that).

[llm_nerd]

>If your interpretation was correct, Meta would not have removed Canadian news sources entirely.

Meta's actions prove absolutely nothing. I could similarly say that Google didn't remove any news, therefore the law has zero effect?

Meta has, for months in advance of anything coming into force, embargoed Canadian news and replaced it with an appeal to the reader. That is political action, and it seems to have failed given that the government didn't blink. Now that Google has an agreement, it looks especially silly.

If Meta continues their embargo of Canadian news, personally I consider that a good thing. The Canadian public accepting that Meta is not a good source or "homepage" for news is a wonderful outcome of all of this.

[ipaddr]

I welcome it for the opposite reason. The few powerful families that control the news cartel in Canada need less reach.

[SiempreViernes]

You "welcome" media control going from a "few families" to a single person?

[ipaddr]

When you mute corporate media all of these little voices get louder.

[wesapien]

If I had to choose a lesser evil it would be Facebook