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Google came to an agreement shows that they don't have a fundamental issue with the law either (or they could've just withdrawn from our market, like Meta).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Google came to an agreement shows that they don't have a fundamental issue with the law either (or they could've just withdrawn from our market, like Meta).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Google came to an agreement shows that they don't have a fundamental issue with the law either (or they could've just withdrawn from our market, like Meta).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