The group of people that came up with this bill and it’s wording have no idea how the internet works. The idea that a site needs to pay to provide a link to another site is not well though out. The internet is built on links.

Canadian news companies shot themselves in the foot here. They want social media site to not summarize their news articles (this keeps users on the social media site). At the same time news companies also don’t want social media site to link to the news article (this directs users to the news site).

When news articles are summarized by social media sites it means that a individual can read the news article without going to a news site directly, thus a social media site gains financial with ad revenue directly from “content” it did not create.

What news sites wanted is user come to their sites directly to generate ad revenue on their platform. So a link would help users find this “content” and benefits news sites. Though news companies now also want to double dip and request that social site pay news companies for the link to their site.

In short, Canadian news companies wanted their cake and eat it too.

Maybe the internet being built on links is a problem?

You could run the same argument for ads and tracking

I’m not entirely sure how one could create a internet of interconnected computers and servers without links to one another and the webpages they serve.

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

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

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

It’s just weird when the law gets involved. If site operators don’t want incoming connections to their systems without having record of payment received, they can simply deny the request.

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