• m0darn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the headline mischaracterizes the intent of the ban. It didn’t fail to dent Facebook usage. The ban succeeded, showing no reduction in Facebook traffic despite reducing access to content.

    • nathris@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It wasn’t a ban. It was a tax designed to funnel money into the media companies that own our politicians.

      It failed spectacularly because it shows that Canadians don’t visit Facebook for news coverage, and that Meta was 100% correct to not pay for access to content that its users don’t care about.

      • m0darn@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree that the tax was designed to funnel money into the media oligopoly to which our politicians are beholden.

        But like the headline, you are conflating the tax with the ban. They aren’t two sides of the same coin, the ban (or maybe more accurately boycott) is a reaction to the tax.

        • Dearche@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Was it a tax? I thought the law simply required third parties to actually pay for reproducing the work of news outlets? Basically paying for paid work, rather than just stealing it?

      • Rocket@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It was a ban on Meta’s side. Of course, not with an intent to dent their own user’s usage. That part does not logically follow.

        The headline (and probably the article) was written by machine, is all. That has been standard practice in the news business for many years now. Just another machine-generated hallucination that we have come to know and love.

    • GeekFTW@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I go to Facebook nowadays for 3 reasons:

      A) Post memes to give my friends a smile or chuckle.
      B) Check on a group or two (50% of the time related to memes also lol.
      C) Someone messaged me.

      If I want news, I go the same places I’ve already been using for 20+ years and it aint Facebook.

  • small44@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I use facebook to get update about my favourite artists, people i know and groups about my hobbies and not to see news that will add nothing to my life

  • rebul@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    So, no impact on Facebook. What about the news agencies? Are they losing ad revenue because of fewer eyeballs on their content?

  • BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not sure what they expected would happen. Regulators can’t help but show off how little they understand about the internet.

      • BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wasn’t reffering to the headline but the situation in general. What I meant was that the regulators expected the companies to be forced to pay up rather than just dropping Canadian news altogether.

        My original comment was a bit vague.

  • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You know what would dent Facebook usage?

    Banning all links to Facebook in Canada.

    I’d be behind that.

  • FuntyMcCraiger@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This law is more than just paying news corporations isn’t it? I remember reading about how there were some stipulations in there to stop companies from Cherry picking the articles that benefit them the most, while also hiding anything critical of themselves.