67

The NWT government and city of Yellowknife are describing in tweets, Instagram messages etc. how to search key evacuation information on CPAC and CBC. The broadcast carriers have a duty to carry emergency information, but Meta and X are blocking links.

While internet access is reportedly limited in Yellowknife, residents are finding this a barrier to getting current and accurate information. Even links to CBC radio are blocked.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Can the Canadian government please just have an official platform for sharing this kind of information? Why are evacuation notices going on Facebook???

[-] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 20 points 1 year ago

They do have these platforms, but many people have become dependent on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to link to information.

So the territorial government is literally posting on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter telling people how to search for CPAC Canada and CBC Radio so they can find the sites.

Compare that to the duty of all broadcasters in a public emergency to carry the key evacuation information on radio and television and tell people where to get more detailed emergency instructions.

[-] girlfreddy@mastodon.social 8 points 1 year ago

@StillPaisleyCat @ImplyingImplications

It's not a dependence in an addictive way. It's in a community way, where all news is shared on community pages for the benefit of the community because they rely on each other for survival every day.

[-] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 14 points 1 year ago

Agreed. But this is a societal dependence.

Too many clubs, churches and communities organizations, and small businesses found Facebook easier to maintain than websites, so many people became dependent on that platform.

The challenge is that governments have a duty to meet their constituents where they are, especially in emergencies. So they send out Tweets, ‘grams and posts directing people to the information on official sites.

Before the Internet, people would turn on their radios or televisions. That’s why in most jurisdictions (including the United States) broadcasters and cable carriers MUST carry emergency broadcasts, superceding regular programming. The wave of climate-related emergencies raise the question of whether internet aggregator platforms should be required to do the same.

As an aside, governments and public new sources maintain websites that are accessible. Due to a Canadian Supreme Court decision requiring government platforms to be accessible to persons with disabilities, Canadian new sites have user interfaces that are adaptive.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] library_napper@monyet.cc 9 points 1 year ago

The point is that these alerts need to he on sites that people actually check.

I dont wake up every morning and scroll through the government's PSA website. I do wake up and scroll my Lemmy news communities.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I get texts all the time for amber alerts that I can rarely assist with, why can't an emergency message be sent over the same system?

CBC provides service in the north in numerous Indigenous languages, including through its Facebook pages which many in those communities rely on.

As a public broadcaster it has a duty to meet the needs of Canadians for essential information where they look not just in English and French on standard internet sites, or even their low bandwidth emergency ones.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] muninn@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Hakaku@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

CBC is grasping at straws trying to put the blame on Facebook for the very bill they pushed through, that had very predictable consequences. Canadians news publishers have no one to blame for this but themselves.

The article basically reads as though they're upset for not being paid by Meta during emergencies and sad they can't profit as much off people glued to watching emergencies (it's absolutely not because they're truly concerned for the actual ppl facing the emergency). It's quite tasteless for them to pull the misinformation card when news publishers aren't always known to spread accurate or helpful information -- they're mostly there for the fear mongering. And Meta's response on that front is the correct one: they're not blocking government sites and government sites should be considered the sources of truth and information during emergencies.

That said, unrelated to news link sharing, there's a larger discussion to be had around emergency broadcasts over the internet: should the government create legislation to have an emergency notification tool in place that can be triggered on Canadian websites and websites catering to Canadians (social media included)? Many institutions, including universities, have their own systems for doing exactly this so why can't the government?

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

Facebook's response was petulant and childish. This is not Canada's fault any more than it was the fault of other countries who enacted the same regs.

Oh. You didn't know there were others?

[-] Hakaku@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

There's only one country with even a remotely similar legislation, that being Australia. Facebook got the amendments it wanted before the Australian Code received royal assent.

If you're going to cry foul about how Facebook is following the legislation Canada is putting in place, you'll need to try harder than that.

[-] Guns4Gnus@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

The legislation isn't even in place yet, and FB are acting like Trudeau just nut punched Zuckerburg.

FB didn't want to talk. If they did, they would say they are in talks.

What FB wanted, was to be a bully and have the law repealed. Not have it adjusted.

[-] Hakaku@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Please stop rehashing the same dead argument over and over and whining about Facebook being a bully when they're very clearly following the terms of the legislation and this outcome was very clearly predictable. News publishers are not victims of bullying, they're victims of their own legislation. And no Meta never once asked for the bill to be dropped, they expressed concerns around wording and requested some amendments; so did Alphabet. Ask yourself why Meta is fine paying news organizations in Australia but not Canada.

Further, as others have already pointed out in this thread and in others on this topic, the bill has received royal assent. The only next step is the Coming into force, which will happen 180 days after that. So whether Meta pulls news now or in 180 days really doesn't matter: the effects, the impacts and the results will be the same. Others have also given the extreme example that if a country that had no legislation around murder were to pass a bill making murder illegal, you wouldn't run around murdering as many people as possible until that act came into force. It's the same idea here.

Keep also in mind that the Online News Act grants the CRTC the ability to name any company it wants at any point as a "digital news intermediary". So this act could have far reaching consequences on much more than Meta and Alphabet in the long term. And it's very likely that any other platform they name will also drop Canadian news for the simple reason that Canadian News needs social media, but the reverse isn't true at all.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] xfint@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"More than ever, this kind of dangerous situation shows how having more access to trustworthy and reliable information and news is vital for so many of our communities to be informed about the current emergency."

Facebook isn't trustworthy. Tech bros can't be trusted.

It's not like the internet has been removed. Social media isn't the internet. News sites are still accessible. As is the whole internet. People need to get their head out of their asses already. This problem is farcical. Life threatening situation, 'oh no my facebook is broken what will I do?!?11'. How did we even get to this point. The internet circa 90s and early 2000s is laughing their asses off at all this. PEBKAC.

[-] festus@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago

Should they? Not if we punish them with fees for linking. I mean, imagine you're trying to warn your neighbours about an approaching fire and a police officer pulls up to tell you that you'll have to pay $50 for each neighbour you warn. I wouldn't blame you if you stopped, I'd blame whatever law stopped you. Similarly here, I don't blame Meta for not linking but I blame the government that will penalize Meta the moment any link points to a news outlet, emergency or not.

[-] ram@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is a bad take. I'm blaming Facebook for deciding they'd rather not have news than share the money they make off it with the people who need to be paid to make it.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

While paying 0$ in taxes on the profit they make off of Canadians, don't forget to add that part!

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] el56@mastodon.social 3 points 1 year ago

@ram @festus
What is your evidence that Facebook is making money off of linking to news? They say it's not earning them much money, which is why cutting Canadian media off is not losing them anything.

load more comments (2 replies)

The tax and the legislation is at least a half a year from coming into force, the regulatory framework to operationalize it hasn’t even been published for public consultation.

Meta has started blocking preemptively. This is a power play protest about avoiding being subject to other countries’ law. That’s it.

[-] festus@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

While I'm sure there are some messaging aspects to doing it early, it's worth pointing out that by January, unless the government repeals the law, Meta will be penalized for allowing links during emergencies. This specific law comes into operation regardless of whether the government has published any framework or not.

This is a power play protest about avoiding being subject to other countries’ law.

Meta is complying with this law. The idea behind the law was that Meta was stealing ad revenue from news organizations by linking to them, and that if they wanted to continue linking to them they needed to compensate news organizations. Meta has thus stopped 'stealing' the ad revenue. That's complying with the law. It did exactly what it was expected to do, in the same way that when you tax cigarettes you expect some people to cut back on smoking. Even better, Meta stopped 'stealing' before the law even came into force!

Seriously it's like there's nothing they can do to satisfy their critics - they get accused of stealing news so they stop it, and then they get accused of harming news sites by not stealing.

Which is it? Is Meta beneficial to news organizations or harmful to them? If harmful then there's no problem with Meta blocking news links. If beneficial, then maybe this is a dumb law that's akin to the government putting a tax on exercising.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] FreeBooteR69@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

Honestly Canada should join the Fediverse en mass, depending on shitty proprietary and predatory social media is a weak point for our democracy.

[-] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Canada should join the Fediverse en mass

We've had NNTP since the 1980s. What does the Fediverse offer Canadians that they didn't already have offered to them with NNTP? There is probably a good reason why they don't accept these distributed social networks en-mass.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Tired8281@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

Did they offer to let them carry the links for free? Or are they using an emergency to demand a payday?

Once again, THE LEGISLATION HAS NOT YET COME INTO FORCE.

Yelling is rude, but the repeated questions that seem to ignore that Meta’s blocking of links is preemptive is beginning to have the feel of sealioning.

Meta is not at risk of any tax if they unblock links during this emergency.

[-] Guns4Gnus@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

Love how FB gets to charge for bots to scrape their content, while they scrape everyone elses content for free.

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

Don't let people post links to Canadian news unless you've paid the publisher.

No, not like that!

[-] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 13 points 1 year ago

Like what?

Meta and X are acting preemptively before the government has even finalized how the system would work.

The law hasn’t even come into force. The regulations haven’t even been Gazetted and put through the public consultation period.

Meta and X feel that they shouldn’t be subject to the law of any other country. That’s what’s at the foundation of this.

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Demonstrating what your response will be before the law goes into force seems like a good idea to me - the cost to Facebook is minimal and if people are going to change their minds, the earlier they do the easier it'll be to return to the status quo.

There's nothing above-the-law about this. The law sets the terms which Facebook must comply with if it wants to do business in Canada, but the law can't make Facebook keep doing business in Canada.

[-] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But Facebook is doing business in Canada while refusing to be subject to Canadian law or courts while doing it.

It’s platforms are up in Canada, recruiting members, collecting and monetizing data on Canadians.

There have been court cases and orders in Canada where both Meta and Google have refused to comply with judicial decisions on the grounds that only California and US federal courts have jurisdiction over them.

The law in this case could require Meta, Google and X to carry emergency information and links to it without monetization, just as it does for private broadcasters and cable carriers.

[-] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

There have been court cases and orders in Canada where both Meta and Google have refused to comply with judicial decisions on the grounds that only California and US federal courts have jurisdiction over them.

Got any links for that? That's pretty juicy.

Here is a Walrus feature on the story of a mother whose son went unexpectedly missing from the University of Toronto, and whose body was found washed up from Lake Ontario much later.

The family’s attempts to access her late son’s email and social media accounts from Google and Facebook went to court, and there was an order, but both refused to comply and insisted she take it through California courts (which she eventually did as part of a group case).

The mother’s efforts were also reported on by the Ottawa Citizen in several articles and a video, the CBC, and the Globe and Mail .

While this case raised significant questions of digital privacy and what should be the legal standard to access accounts posthumously in cases of missing and suspicious deaths, Facebook and Google fought the case on the grounds of jurisdiction and refused to comply with the Canadian court order.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Meta and X are acting preemptively before the government has even finalized how the system would work.

Stands to reason. If Canadians were creating laws around homicide for the first time, but the exact details weren't yet known, are you going to go around killing people while you still can, or are you going to respect the intent to the best of your ability knowing that Canadians do not want to be killed?

Logically, the latter, of course. Even if you don't quite get it right with respect to the final details, trying to respect the wishes is clearly better than ignoring them.

Meta and X feel that they shouldn’t be subject to the law of any other country.

And they are no doubt right. There are cases where they have ignored Canadian court decisions around individuals without any consequences. And if that were the only thing of relevance, they could simply ignore this whole ordeal.

Trouble is that, when it comes to the mass user base, they need to appease the people of those countries, else they will leave. Facebook doesn't have a compelling business if they can only win over product and customers from one country. Its value is dependent on serving the entire world.

It is not like the people of Canada went to all the trouble of bringing this legislation to the table because they wanted to play a prank on Musk. They are serious about it. If Facebook showed that it didn't care the users would get pissed off and walk away.

You can screw around with individuals without noticing, but in this case Canadians as a whole called for action. Losing all Canadian users would be a significant loss to their business. Facebook had to do something. Going on killing for months until the details come out, even if technically allowable, is not a good look.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Oh no, the consequences of our actions!

[-] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

A fundamental question of the 21st century is, as internet media company replace legacy media companies, do they have the same responsibilities? Legacy media companies have the advantage they get to use a very limited piece of Canadian real-estate, that is the airwaves, and so the Government is in a good position to say "well if we're letting you use our airwaves, we need you to do something for us" and this includes CanCon, emergency broadcast, etc.

But now those "airwaves" are becoming increasingly abandoned and everything is digital and going over wires, wifi, and cellular to the international internet. But the above thing about "broadcast" was always a hack. It was a workaround for the fact that basically we need the loudest voices in Canada to also help Canada out.

And now we've lost that justification, but we still have the need.

Imho, the justification was always BS. If you have a massive media-org with a giant-ass megaphone in Canada, you've got responsibilities. I don't care if you're a website or a news channel or a dead tree paper.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Evacuees from the devastating blazes threatening Yellowknife say the ongoing fight between Meta, the owner of Facebook, and Canada's federal government over who should pay for news has made it harder to spread life-saving information about the wildfires in the Northwest Territories.

Poitras says it's bad enough having to handle the logistics of getting out in a hurry and worrying about what might happen to her home town while she's gone, but the situation has been made worse by the ongoing fight between Big Tech and the Canadian government over who should pay for news.

The debate over Bill C-18, known as the Online News Act, may be an academic one in many parts of Canada, but not in the North, where people are dealing with an unfolding natural disaster while suddenly being unable to use one of the most popular communication platforms to share information about wildfire locations and evacuation plans.

A live news conference covered by Cabin Radio and CBC on Wednesday evening announced the evacuation of Yellowknife, but it wasn't shareable on Facebook, prompting users like Poitras and others to try to get around the block by posting screengrabs of information instead of direct links.

"People in Canada are able to use Facebook and Instagram to connect to their communities and access reputable information, including content from official government agencies, emergency services and non-governmental organisations," said Meta spokesperson David Troya-Alvarez.

She says the world is watching the Canadian dispute closely, as numerous other jurisdictions have similar laws planned, and Meta has clearly "decided to use Canada as a bit of a test population to try this out and see how far they can force the government to go before perhaps keeping or coming to the bargaining table.


The original article contains 1,512 words, the summary contains 275 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
67 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7411 readers
476 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS