this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
72 points (97.4% liked)

Canada

9424 readers
1205 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is how Canadian news sites will die. The only reason Canadian sites are accessible to most is because of search engines. The major search engines and social media platforms could easily remove Canadian sites will little loss. Facebook has already done it and has received little decrease in usage.

Canadian news needs search engines more than the search engines need Canadian news.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The problem is not search engines per se, but how those engines work. When the search engine pulls so much more than just a link, there is no need to actually go to the site. That means the only party making ad revenue is the search engine.

Then you have platforms like Twitter and Facebook that have a "pay to promote" system. AYour feeds are not just what you've decided to follow sorted by how you prioritize things, but sorted by who has paid the most, including content that you never actually subscribed to. That means if the CBC, or anyone, wants to actually be seen by their followers, they have to both pay and provide enough content that makes visiting the site less necessary. So on top of reduced opportunity for ad revenue or to gain an actual subscription, they have to pay to get that reduced opportunity.

Yes, I know that the sites have some control over how much beyond a link they allow to be pulled, but the nature of human attention means that being too restrictive is basically equivalent to not existing.

To be clear, I don't have a solution. The current legislation is not the answer, but something needs to be done. I'm starting to think that news and journalism needs to be supported the way we used to support the arts. Government funding with very, very few strings attached. But I can see lots of problems with that, too.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

When the search engine pulls so much more than just a link, there is no need to actually go to the site. ... I don’t have a solution.

Luckily you don't need one. Facebook came up with the solution a long time ago – one that all the major media sites adopted. It's called OpenGraph. It lets the publishers decide exactly how they want to present their content on these sites. Give too much information and the users won't click? Change what information you specify. It all happens on the publisher's side, so they are in full control.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

OpenGraph is definitely a great idea. That still leaves the problem of paid content getting pushed to the top.