• ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Short of maybe making one “central hub” controlled by one state/entity. Though this would probably not turn out great

    I think public search engines is a good idea though it would be multiple states

    I suppose it’s because I’m old so I don’t like how centralized and profit driven the internet has become but I see nothing wrong with profit sharing with websites on pages where their link is used

    • Rocket@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I see nothing wrong with profit sharing with websites on pages where their link is used

      It’s just strange when the law gets involved to carve out weird special cases for special interests.

      If site operators don’t want incoming connections to their systems without having record of payment received from a referring party, they can simply deny the request. Hell, put up a big red notice that says “You are not permitted to access this website because the place from whence you came refuses to pay for your access. Please encourage them to do so to help fund our wonderful content!” for all anyone cares.

      This is all perfectly negotiable through boring old contract law that has been around forever.

      • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I see the law as a step not the end and would rather further the reaches of the legislation than repeal it

        As per blocking referrals I feel the issue is more the title and blurb stops people from clicking through as is. Hence the legislation

        If Facebook wasn’t allowed to show more than just a link then they would react in a similar manner

        Lemmy has a similar issue of people only reading the title or what the person said about a link

        • Rocket@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          If Facebook wasn’t allowed to show more than just a link then they would react in a similar manner

          Funny thing is that Facebook gave publishers what they call Open Graph many years ago to allow them exacting control over what the links entail. All of Canada’s major publications have adopted Open Graph. If you are seeing more than just a link, it is because the publication has explicitly given more information to Facebook to use.

          If you don’t want Facebook to have that information… maybe don’t provide it?

            • Rocket@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              If said posting fell under fair use there is little the publication can do, but that’s on purpose! We created fair use laws specifically to allow that behaviour. If that is not what we want anymore, logically we would revert the law, not come up with all kinds of weird and contrived bandaids to help only special friends.

              If the post fell short of fair use, the publication would have the legal right to seek penalization for the person who posted the content. It would also be a violation of Facebook’s terms of service. In this case, the answer to your question is essentially yes. It cannot be prevented, per se, but corrective action can be taken – which also serves to dissuade others from doing the same in the future.

                • Rocket@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Yes, you are quite right that the Canadian news media does not appropriately understand the technology they are trying to use and regulation should disallow their use of it going forward.