Facebook confirms it will drop news sharing in Canada under bill C-18

https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/03/the-consequence-of-mandated-payments-for-links-facebook-confirms-it-will-drop-news-sharing-in-canada-under-bill-c-18/

by nohaydeprobleme • 3 years ago

221 158 3 years ago

michaelgeist.ca

HappySweeney2• 3 years ago

Didn't they say the same thing to Australia when they tabled their version of this bill? And then did not Facebook cave? How is this statement at all credible in light of this?

zaltekk• 3 years ago

From the first paragraph:

the experience in Australia was that [Facebook's] removal [of news link sharing] had little impact on user engagement.

HappySweeney2• 3 years ago

Serves me right for commenting on the headline alone.

sourcecodeplz3• 3 years ago

But it did have a major impact on the traffic of those sites.

clouddrover5• 3 years ago

Yes, Facebook restored news content in Australia. Dropping news content was a negotiating tactic:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56165015

And Facebook knowingly and grubbily caused extra chaos as part of their effort to get their way:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-deliberately-caused-ha...

Manuel_D3• 3 years ago

And Facebook knowingly and grubbily caused extra chaos as part of their effort to get their way

There is exceptionally little merit to this claim. They blocked links news outlets that would have subjected them to the link tax, and this block wasn't perfect. There was nothing to indicate that blocking sites that wouldn't have incurred the link tax was deliberate.

tqi2• 3 years ago

*WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who was a vocal proponent of the bill[1][2]

[1] https://www.vox.com/recode/22287971/australia-facebook-news-... [2] https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/media-bargaining-cod...

twblalock2• 3 years ago

Good. Payment for links is a really dumb policy, and if it works for news it will leech into other areas until the internet is a minefield of tolls and taxes for anyone who wants to aggregate information in a useful way -- including sites like HN and Wikipedia.

motohagiography2• 3 years ago

This seems to mean that fewer Canadians will be engaging on Facebook, and that news articles from outlets that meet the official standards of Facebook and the government will have a smaller audience.

In terms of improving the quality of public discourse, how is this not win-win?

CivBase3• 3 years ago

Genuine question: Why would most users engage less with Facebook as a result of this?

I'd expect most users to continue what they were doing before, but now their feed of headlines will come exclusively from international sources.

I doubt I'd engage less with HN if they banned articles from US companies.

motohagiography2• 3 years ago

Arguably fewer news articles means less outrage, yielding lower engagement. The recipe for a news story requires events and a conflict to tell the story of, and official news sources largely fabricate that conflict and decorate it with the events of the day.

The fabrication comes from ideology, one that percieves everything as conflict and power struggle. It's why the news often seems like utter nonsense. I don't watch it anymore because I can't sustain a state of cringe that long, but anything that reduces its reach is something I can get behind.

pwinnski• 3 years ago

Lucky Canada!

s1artibartfast2• 3 years ago

Seems like the news companies are shooting themselves in the foot, but it sounds good to me.

I would love a world where google and facebook are full of links to primary sources instead of news articles.

Imagine a world where you search "supreme court decision X", "California covid policy", or "FDIC action today" and the top result is the responsible agency statement followed by blogs.

908B64B1972• 3 years ago

There was no drop in user engagement when Meta tried it in Australia.

However, traffic originating from Facebook has to represent a sizeable portion of incoming traffic for news site.

s1artibartfast2• 3 years ago

yeah, that is kinda my point.

phpisthebest2• 3 years ago

That is because most of the "news" is not original reporting any more. Everyone is just feeding off each other so if the store is not at site A, it will be on Site B through 184,284,756 of which at least one of them will still be sharable on Facebook, and in Google news thus the traffic will just move to those sites and users will share and engage with them losing nothing...

badRNG• 3 years ago

Far more likely will be grainy reposted jpeg screen grabs of the title and first paragraph of the article being shared.

mmcwilliams• 3 years ago

This is exactly where things are headed. Think reddit reposts of external social media posts with usernames scrubbed.

choilive• 3 years ago

Under C-18 it also includes "indexing", and Google has indicated they will also remove them from search results, this isn't just shooting in the foot, its suicide.

ThatMedicIsASpy2• 3 years ago

I just love to watch this play out.

telotortium• 3 years ago

Canadian news organizations don't care, because they're all heavily subsidized by the government, and so essentially state media[1]:

But given the trend in Canadian media, I’d guess low Thousands… possibly 10-20k if they do really well, but also quite possibly down into the hundreds some episodes… C-SPAN, a sorta equivalent network, got 440,000 viewers for the 2020 republican convention and 76,000 for the 2020 Democratic convention (Citation)… so divide by 10 for the Canadian population…divide by 2 to 10 again for how exciting a week night of TVO isn’t compared to a 2020 US political convention… and ya a few single digit thousand, or even a few hundred viewers on an off night… that’s what we’d estimate for an Average episode of the Agenda.
The Agenda was thriving as a property in the Internet age. If anything the internet was a massive boon to it. It went from this obscure regional talk show in Ontario to regularly getting hundreds of thousands of views internationally on YouTube.
The Agenda had dozens of videos in the 2015-2016 period that got millions of views. One of Jordan Peterson’s more famous appearance on The Agenda got 8.5 million views. for a long form interview!? Those are Joe Rogan numbers!
How the hell does that happen!? How do you go from Joe Rogan big, to smaller than my hobby Substack?
Hell How does The Agenda pay the production costs!? As of writing, this substack doesn’t pay for the coffee I drink writing it. (please subscribe) How do they produce a 5 day a week show with multiple full time staff for…
Oh right my tax dollars.

[1] https://anarchonomicon.substack.com/p/why-is-legacy-media-li....

brwck• 3 years ago

Seems like the news companies are shooting themselves in the foot, but it sounds good to me.

No. They are using their political power to extort money from social media companies.

"Facebook to pay News Corp for content in Australia".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56410335

Rupert Murdoch literally forced google and facebook to pay him money for directing traffic to his sites.

Imagine a world where you search "supreme court decision X", "California covid policy", or "FDIC action today" and the top result is the responsible agency statement followed by blogs.

That would be ideal but ultimately, the social media companies always cave. Shows you the power of news companies and what they truly are when they can bully the likes of apple, google, facebook, microsoft, etc.

You would think that news publishers like news corp or the nytimes or cnn are no match for the tech giants. But history has proven otherwise.

ThePowerOfFuet• 3 years ago

I would love a world where google and facebook are full of links to primary sources instead of news articles.

I would love a world where Facebook doesn't exist, and Google is but one player in a healthy search ecosystem.

A boy can dream.

suprjami4• 3 years ago

You're 20 years too late. It was good at the time.

tensor2• 3 years ago

I think that is highly wishful thinking. In reality the links will just go to misinformation sites that are not on the up-and-up and thus not classified as actual news sources.

Broken_Hippo• 3 years ago

I would love a world where google and facebook are full of links to primary sources instead of news articles.

That's great if you have time to read whatever it is and/or have the knowledge to parse through the language. Most folks aren't going to read the paper nor the overall decision. Time constraints, stress, and simply not being educated in the field (or understanding legal terms) keep folks from doing this.

On top of that, there are definitely times that the news is the primary source. Where else are you going to learn about war, drought, weather, protests, food recalls, and other such things? You'll probably find weather, but nothing on protests. Sure, you can go to "sources", but you have to actively find them.

News might not be the same as it was, but it isn't like it doesn't still have a use.

I'd really like to have rules about headlines/reporting accurately portraying things, but that's a conversation for another time.

ocdtrekkie• 3 years ago

Tech companies said the same in Australia. They are all now paying. Because as soon as their ability to bully content companies due to their monopoly scale is taken away, turns out they still making a ton of money scraping news content, even if they have to pay for it now.

h10h10h10• 3 years ago

Perfect. Meta is doing good things as of late, like telling the UK govt to fuck off with the 'drop E2E encryption' bs. I hope more tech behemoths start to stand their ground.

Companies trying to maximize their profit >>> Authoritarian dystopia 24/7 surveillance governments ran by lunatics

xvector2• 3 years ago

Do not know why this comment was killed. This is a valid take.

tobyjsullivan• 3 years ago

After watching this play out in Australia, it doesn't feel like there are many new arguments to be made. It's just sad to watch.

As a Canadian, it bothers me that our politicians are willing to jump through mental hoops to avoid considering the most obvious solutions.

If news companies don't want people accessing their content through the web, shouldn't they simply take down their web sites? If they aren't willing to do that (because, say, the benefits outweigh the costs), then perhaps this isn't an issue that warrants legislation...

brunoborges• 3 years ago

The problem here is that people are not, at scale, hitting the news company website. Users of social media platforms see headlines, sometimes an alt text/description followed with a picture, and that is it. They start jumping to a discussion on said topic with whoever posted the news piece.

People are not reading the articles in full (and therefore being presented with ads, or a subscription paywall), but they are engaging on the social media platform that in turn is making money with ads and other features thanks to the engagement produced by the shared news article.

News companies are being cannibalized by social media companies who get all the engagement (and ad revenue), while people at scale are not signing up for paywalls or even visiting the news site to read the article in full.

I believe this will hopefully make news companies get back to a profitable business, while making conversations on social media platforms a lot healthier.

Teever• 3 years ago

Most of the Canadian media market is owned by American interests so really we're just watching two American companies duke it out over who gets advertising money paid by companies selling American consumer shit.

As a Canadian it's really hard to give a shit about any of this.

twblalock2• 3 years ago

Maybe the news companies should figure out how to attract more people to their sites rather than trying to charge rent on other sites?

Maybe the news companies should write articles that are worth reading in full?

If Facebook links to an article people might follow the link and read it. If they don't link to an article, nobody will read it. There is nothing but upside for the news companies, and people with business savvy would love to have their site linked on Facebook (that's why people pay them so much money for ads!).

CivBase3• 3 years ago

I don't get it.

People were content only reading headlines before. They couldn't be bothered to click the link and read the articles. I get why that's a problem. But now that the users aren't even being given links... the expectation is that users will go out of their way to find and read those articles?

Is their strategy litterally just playing hard to get?

eloff• 3 years ago

People are not reading the articles in full (and therefore being presented with ads, or a subscription paywall), but they are engaging on the social media platform

I feel like you just described Hacker News.

actuator3• 3 years ago

FWIW, social media apps used to pull data using OG tags, media publications are free to not put those tags

justapassenger• 3 years ago

You’ll get people sharing headlines from obscure blogs and then arguing about it.

You cannot legislate changes to human nature.

patmcc• 3 years ago

The news sites can certainly add a robots.txt page or stop crawling from Facebook/Google in other ways. I'd even be fine with the law saying "Google/Facebook can't do automated summaries of the page content" or whatever, allow that to be opt-in/out.

The bullshit part is saying Google has to pay for the privilege of linking out to the sites. Ridiculous.

nvrmnd2• 3 years ago

I think you could easily argue that social media links to the news websites provides more value to the news website than vice-versa. If, for example, only the headline and sub-headline were quoted in the posts without the link -- which the Heritage Minister indicated would not constitute a fee -- any discussion could still take place, and certainly there would be even less benefit to the news organization.

Any news website can already prevent Facebook from generating link previews through meta tags, as I understand. But very few, if any, websites do this indicating that they understand it's not in their interests.

Perhaps people are not reading the articles because the _discussion_ is more valuable to them than the content of the article? Don't we all occasionally jump to the comment section on HN/reddit instead of reading the article? Seems to me that many news organizations have not yet figured out how to provide their customers with a product they are willing to "pay" for.

I mean, any brief visit to a small news website without an ad-blocker or, worse, a scroll through the comment section, should make this fairly evident.

kaczordon• 3 years ago

This is called hyperlinking. The entire web is built on this concept.

Marsymars• 3 years ago

You're right, but this law does a terrible job of tackling that problem.

It only affects links, not the headline/description/picture blurb. A plain text link would cost FB money, while a headline/description/picture with no link would cost FB nothing.

And presumably FB would only block link-sharing if doing so was a net positive for them.

This implementation is based off fundamentally backwards understandings of the flow of value on the web. The appropriate implementation of this would just be a straight-up corporate tax of social media companies and an accompanying subsidy of news orgs, not this weird linking nonsense.

smsm42• 3 years ago

The problem here is that people are not, at scale, hitting the news company website

Maybe that's something the news companies have to work on - such as working on making these sites more useful and attractive to the users, instead of adding more ads and paywalls and then running to the government screaming "people don't want to visit our sites, please save us".

madeofpalk• 3 years ago

So users take links to news websites, and post them on other websites, in a way that Canada thinks should be illegal?

What's Facebook done wrong here?

anoy8888• 3 years ago

No. This is how they will get out of business and then cried for legislation help again to get into social media

sroussey• 3 years ago

Why stop there? The ISPs are making money on the traffic as well, maybe hit them up as well.

donatj• 3 years ago

I believe this will hopefully make news companies get back to a profitable business

It won't. Very few people who current aren't paying for news are just going to start. The incenssent news readers pay for news already. The others will move on to other less reliable content.

varispeed2• 3 years ago

Why news sites should receive a special treatment?

Shouldn't everyone who posts on social media get a cut of advertising revenue?

thrown123098• 3 years ago

How is this different to people from yesteryear just skimming the headlines at the local grocers then putting the paper down and buying their cigarettes?

I'm old enough to remember my grand father doing that in the 90s in the same store he visited since the 50s.

lxm• 3 years ago

Would a robots.txt-equivalent solution satisfy both parties?

Media orgs could ban the indexing of their pages by specific scrapers, and users on those social networks would just see a raw URL, not a preview with headline+image+blurb?

ipcress_file• 3 years ago

If news companies don't want people accessing their content through the web, shouldn't they simply take down their web sites?

That's clearly not the issue. The news companies obviously do want people to access their sites over the web and pay for the privilege. This argument is both incorrect and disingenuous.

The problem is that search and social media companies have been permitted to appropriate and monetize other people's content in different ways. They're parasitic. I don't think that links are really the problem and I'm not surprised that the Liberals have missed the forest for the trees. They do that. The real issue is providing the significant part of the content without requiring people to go to the actual site.

Manuel_D3• 3 years ago

The problem is that search and social media companies have been permitted to appropriate and monetize other people's content in different ways. They're parasitic.

By this logic, Facebook, Google et.al. dropping links to these news outlets would help these companies. Furthermore, they can already opt out of being crawled through their robots.txt file. But of course, this logic is total BS which is why they don't opt of being indexed.

andrei_says_• 3 years ago

News companies don’t want corporations stealing their content and presenting it on their own platforms.

timbit424• 3 years ago

Then the news media needs to modify their headlines, images and summaries to be less revealing so their content isn't stolen and so people will want to click through and read their articles.

Forcing social media to pay for links users post or click is only going to end up in the news media becoming poorer because social media will demote articles that cost more and promote articles that cost less.

drooopy• 3 years ago

I pray that they roll this feature out to the rest of the world.

sourcecodeplz3• 3 years ago

Yes, exactly my first thought. Too many people get their news from FB headlines.

There was a user here who said something about people reading an obviously unresearched news article in a newspaper, knowing it is saying bullcrap BUT kept reading other pieces from that paper. Because one bad article doesn't make the whole newspaper worthless.

Find yourself a couple of newspapers and read them. Scan the front page. Get a wholer picture of the news. It's sad really printed newspapers have vanished so extensively.

Meanwhile on FB, people read a headline and that's it.

ThatMedicIsASpy2• 3 years ago

That isn't exclusive to FB. It's everywhere, reddit, twitter, hackernews. People have low attention spans and its getting lower and lower when you watch hundreds of 30s videos these days.

wstrange• 3 years ago

Bill C-18 is a big wet kiss to a few large Canadian Media companies.

Their business model is under stress because of the internet. Link taxes won't fix this and they set a terrible precedent.

Quoting from Candaland[0]. "In Australia, an estimated 90 per cent of negotiated revenues flowed to the three largest media companies."

That hardly bodes well for independent journalism. This is just a shakedown.

[0] https://www.canadaland.com/canadas-online-news-act-must-be-t...

ttul• 3 years ago

I scanned through the bill (at third reading [1]). On the face of it, it seems to be intended to "level the playing field" between powerful search engines and social media platforms and Canadian news organizations, allegedly because "there is a significant bargaining power imbalance" between the platforms and the journalists.

But if you have lived in Canada for any length of time, you will know that this is a country ruled by a small number of highly profitable corporations, which are largely controlled by a few wealthy families. For instance:

- Corus Entertainment is 80% controlled by the family of JR Shaw. - Rogers Communications is controlled by the family of Ted Rogers (via a trust) - Quebecor is controlled by Pierre Péladeau

Indeed, only BCE (the company that owns Bell Canada) is truly a diversely controlled public corporation.

So really, this bill could be considered as the government acting to protect the interests of three wealthy Canadian families.

[1] https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-18/third-r...

cmrdporcupine• 3 years ago

Yep; Canada retains the structure of a colonial outpost, just without the colonial master.

Echoes of the Family Compact, 200 years later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Compact

nradov• 3 years ago

Sounds good to me. I already block news pages on my Facebook feed.

tensor2• 3 years ago

I already block facebook pages and go direct to a few good news sources.

abigail95• 3 years ago

Happy to support this bill extended to news sites that link to my personal website and information being forced to pay me for the privilege.

slyall• 3 years ago

Over here (New Zealand) the newspaper websites never link to anywhere. Especially not the webpage a story is talking about. Pictures get grabbed off websites[1] and credited to "Supplied".

[1] - Loophole in copyright laws for reporting

firecall• 3 years ago

Over here in AU it's much the same.

To the point where AU Sub Reddits posters often put 'F U Murdoch' style watermarks on their images.

So much of the news and headlines is ripped straight from Reddit posts it's no longer amusing...

actuator3• 3 years ago

I don't get people who don't understand www make these laws. The concept of linking something is core to the idea of web. It is beautiful and useful and no one should need to pay for adding an hyperlink.

If media publications want others to not get access to the content, they can choose to not add OG tags or just not let the Google or social media bots scrape the information.

monkeywork2• 3 years ago

It's not about not understanding the web or the concept of linking. It's a reaction to a fundamental way that users are engaging with content.

User behavior has changed online, people are conditioned to tiktok / twitter length information snips, having off the cuff reactions, being the first to be outraged, etc.

It used to be that if someone linked something the BULK of the people who saw that link and were interested would click it and if they wanted to engage, they likely engaged on the site hosting the content first... now the bulk to the people don't click the link to read and instead engage only on their social media platform of choice.

This leads to:

* Increasingly divisive click bait titles * Less informed populace (although they FEEL more informed) * Echo chambers where people get re-enforced on their view of the TITLE (not content) because they are sharing and commenting with likeminded people rather than getting opposing opinions on the source website.

Not saying this bill is the solution but I disagree that it's being considered because people don't understand how linking on the web works.

pessimizer• 3 years ago

It's a reaction to a fundamental way that users are engaging with content.

It's public intervention to preserve a business model by deliberately inserting hurdles to the access of information.

klyrs• 3 years ago

It used to be that if someone linked something the BULK of the people who saw that link and were interested would click it and if they wanted to engage...

I find myself reading comments more than news articles these days because almost every site is littered with modal popups, floating autoplay videos, dickbars covering most of the screen, consent banners, notification consent, location consent, not to mentioned ads, after every paragraph and sometimes almost impossible to scroll past without clicking. The internet has become extremely user hostile, and the true irony here (I can't believe I'm saying this) is that social media sites are focused on engagement so they're actually motivated to not make their UX a painful experience.

actuator3• 3 years ago

now the bulk to the people don't click the link to read and instead engage only on their social media platform of choice.

but this is the fundamental issue with the bill, if I am hanging out with my friends IRL and I bring up a news report, the discussion happens between us without them going to the media site. They are confused about what happens when offline behaviour moves online.

As I said if they were really bothered about the users reading the title/subtitle from the news report on the social media site, all they need to do is to stop the bot from crawling and not add OG tags. That way a user just sees a hyperlink. It was mostly media sites who added OG tags willingly so that their content looked good in the feed.

bawolff• 3 years ago

The bill seems rediculous. Imagine the non internet version where you weren't allowed to discuss the days headlines with a friend without buying the paper.

wolpoli2• 3 years ago

It's actually a bit concerning that I am unable to find any details on the proposed Online News Act. Will HN or Wikipedia be designated as digital platforms? Are digital platforms allowed to link to non-Canadian news sources? What are the enforcement mechanisms for web sites with no Canadian operations?

I wonder if the lack of detail is intentional.

peanuty13• 3 years ago

Presumably Reddit will be subject to the same regulation as Meta and Google.

wolpoli2• 3 years ago

I think so, since Reddit was included in the stakeholder engagement process, along with Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Apple News Canada, Twitter, and Verizon Media (Yahoo) [1]

[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/fair-re...

bentcorner• 3 years ago

I suppose there's a possible future where it will be impossible to find news about the Online News Act.

baron816• 3 years ago

I'm going to say it: news articles are bad (and always have been) and AI will make it better.

The problem is that they usually provide too much context, or not nearly enough. So you either get bored reading it, or don't have the right information to know what's really going on. ie, it's not personalized.

Let's take the stuff going on with SVB right now. Your typical news article is going to start with new information, provide some additional context briefing the reader on how it happened, then go further into depth on what the new info its providing, or just ramble on with additional filler. But the reader doesn't know if its going to actually provide more useful info to them. And that's an actually interesting and complex story. How many news articles do you come across thats pretty much all filler, especially on social media?

AI would make articles interactive. "Tell more more about fractional banking", "does the Fed's statement mean this is a bailout?", "what does this mean for the broader economy?", "what are economists/politicians saying about the government's actions?" are all questions you could ask and get reasonable responses.

hedora• 3 years ago

You can already ask all these questions and get instantaneous answers from sources that are at least archived on archive.org

With AI, propagandists will be able to feed you personalized disinformation in complete privacy.

If you think I’m overly pessimistic, recall what happened with Cambridge Analytics.

zht• 3 years ago

good.

get the foreign influence out of Canada.

we don't need foreign-owned opaque AI deciding which stories to boost and which stories to not

timbit424• 3 years ago

This will mean no links to Canadian media so all Canadians will see is links to non-Canadian media. It won't get foreign influence out of Canada.

blindriver• 3 years ago

How stupid and self-defeating. Sharing links with your friends is the best way to get free advertising for your newspaper. Denying it will cut the revenue from newspapers, and I hope they all die from their short-sightedness. They may think I'll turn around and subscribe, but I'll just forget about them entirely.

wmidwestranger• 3 years ago

The great forces of those interested in suppressing the spread of news and those interested in being paid for their stories to be read are pretty much insurmountable but there is a way past this that neither will like: Simply deliver their conclusions, reasoning, mistakes, and an accurate report through Fair Use, &c.

I wouldn't be surprised if the benefactors of this tripe are even more upset about that. Maybe they will take the uphill fight and challenge fair use, and so on and so on. The foundation they stand on will evaporate beneath them over time and they'll rely on lobbying and ever more pretentious foundations than they had before.

We all wonder how the newsrooms and newspapers of yesteryear were so well funded and so able to nail an absolute home run in a time long gone but the answer is right in front of us. So much of the "news" is just a conduit of public relations, from the advertisers and worse, straight to the audience. At the same time, so much news made by actual reporters is not great for advertisers, the government, important people, etal.

There are absolutely answers but nobody wants to pay for them with money or other means.

jrochkind1• 3 years ago

Allowing quotes from news or summary re-wording of articles (which are pretty darn hard to prohibit) without allowing URLs to sources... is not so great for reliability and trustworthiness and fact-checking of news shared online.

I get what they are trying to do. I don't think there's a way to do it that isn't going to make everything much worse.

TulliusCicero• 3 years ago

Feels a bit like

Media: "You have to pay us to link to us now!"

Tech: "Fine, then I guess we won't link to you."

Media: shocked_pikachu_face.jpg

chihuahua• 3 years ago

The solution: pass a different law that forces FB and Google to pay newspapers, even if they don't link to newspapers. I assume that's the next step.

thefurdrake• 3 years ago

Oh no. Users will have to interact with content other than largely low-quality, reposted, copied news articles. This will surely be the downfall of general public discourse online, as social media sites simply don't have a purpose beyond resharing news.

Good riddance. News sites lose, facebook loses, this feels like a net gain for sanity online.

bagacrap• 3 years ago

So could Facebook scrape a title and thumbnail from a link but not actually linkify the post? Great way to ensure no one rtfa

user3939382• 3 years ago

My only concern is how this affects independent media, which I haven’t researched enough yet to learn.

If all major corporate media and corporate social media companies disappeared tomorrow, except for the workers, I’d just smile and go about my day.

Facebook confirms it will drop news sharing in Canada under bill C-18

Related Stories