It’s not just vague privacy principles keeping this app out of the EU. The Digital Markets Act would prevent Meta from requiring an Instagram account for Threads and wouldn’t let Meta share data between Threads and Instagram (e.g. to let advertisers target you on Threads based on what you liked on Instagram).

It actually does. Read the text of the law. Reproducing ANY PORTION of the news content, including the title of the article or lead sentence (which is what Facebook currently shows) requires paying the publisher. Similarly, just allowing users to post a link which “facilitates access to the content” on the publisher’s…

Sure. But the ads aren’t associated with specific content, they are distributed all over Facebook/Instagram, so how can you say that a news publisher is entitled to $/per post, but the person who created a hilarious cat video doesn’t get a single pence.

Stop posting that this only applies when Facebook posts the content of the article. Literally anything from the title of the article, first line of text, or link to the publisher’s website requires Facebook pay the publisher:

Good news....Crazy Larry can still post news on Facebook because he’s not a registered news publisher, but you can’t counter his conspiracy theory nonsense with credible news sources because of this law/Facebook’s response. This is a disaster from a misinformation standpoint.

You’re describing a thumbnail...it posts a photo and the first few lines of text so a person can determine if they want to click on the link. Otherwise you get nothing but “Shocking Titan Submarine Discovery....” headlines that link to Cialis ads and conspiracy blogs.

This law makes Facebook pay everytime a user posts a link to a news source. Those sites benefit when other users click on the link and are directed to the news publisher’s site (either through digital ads on their own site or pay wall/subscriptions).

No. This is literally about users posting links to news stories. If a Canadian user posts a link to an article from a Canadian “news publisher” (registration required), Facebook has to pay the publisher a negotiated per-post fee.

An academic colleague of mine was supporting this law (and the UK/Australian laws its based on) as being about Publishers getting a “fair share” of revenue from Facebook. The flaw in that argument is that (1) Facebook makes money on ads, not content that people share, and (2) Facebook doesn’t choose which content to…

It’s only going to apply to professional news sources. So your crazy uncle can post those insane conspiracy theories, but you can’t post a properly sourced and verified Washington Post or NYT article rebutting him.

All the people posting the same “Oh noes....news on FB bad” hot take completely miss the point.

“You keep saying that word....I do not think it means what you think it means.”

I hate that I have to choose between Rupert Murdoch and Zuckerberg, but this law is (and the Aussie law its based on) is absurd. Facebook and Google aren’t the ones that are sharing this content, it’s users on their platform who are literally sharing links to these news articles. The Murdochs of the world (and mostly…

No. These are links to websites that people voluntarily share on Facebook. Rupert Murdoch and his right wing tabloids in Australia got a law passed there that required Facebook and Google to pay him every time someone shares a link to one of his papers. Now dying newspapers in the UK, EU, US, and Canada all want the…

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shutterstock-expands-long-standing-relationship-with-meta-301719769.html

Pretty sure they already identified Shutterstock as the provider of all their image datasets for training AI models.

Pretty sure they already identified Shutterstock as the provider of all their image datasets for training AI models.

This, the equivalent UK law, and every other proposal based on the Australian model are fundamentally flawed. The proposal in Australia was just an unabashed bailout of Rupert Murdoch’s news business. His team literally wrote the law and walked MPs through how they could sell it as fair and anti-big tech.

Exactly, it’s easy to see the upside of a world without TikTok, Facebook, and Twitter....but you better add Gizmodo (all of G/O really), Roblox, Fortnite, Reddit, Disqus, and basically anywhere else people interact online.  If you can say, share, or post on a service....that service is likely relying on Section 230…

This.