Still not in Canada, I wonder why? Surprising given where else they've expanded.
For those who don't know, bill C-18 required Google and others to pay Canadian news orgs if they scrape and present their content. This is exactly the battle Australia had with Google (Australia won, btw), but now that Canada has moved forward Google has decided to make an example for all the other mid-tier countries.
And of course C-18 has jack shit to do with BartGPT, and right now Canada has virtually zero privacy laws regarding LLMs. There is the rumblings, just as there is in every other country, and which are far more ominous and threatening in the EU, but Canada is almost always lockstep with the US on that sort of thing.
My general opinion of Google was not great -- laggardly corporation that lost most innovation and now is just riding the past -- but this sends it right off a cliff.
[1] - Google knows they can weaponize the bootlicker sorts, who have already flooded Canadian niches of the tubes to tell everyone to Leave Google Alone, and how mean the government is, etc.
So as a Canadian, THANK YOU GOOGLE!
Every media org is behind C-18. Even PostMedia, about as "right wing" as it gets here, is behind C-18.
C-18 is complex. I have paid little attention to it as it isn't my field and I honestly don't care that much about it. But your take is quite humorous in the context.
Almost every Independent media organization is against C-18, because they will receive no benefit whatsoever from the Bill. Instead they receive irreperable harm in having their revenue and traffic sources from Meta and Google shut off, which for an industry already desperately hanging on by a thread is a significant blow and will result in the bankruptcies of most independent media organizations in Canada.
Your original statement-
"it will absolutely destroy the revenue for media organizations in Canada rapidly accelerating the decline in journalism here"
And by "media organizations" and "journalism" you are No true scotsman leveraging and actually talking about, I guess, some guy with a YouTube channel?
Every local paper is owned by one of the majors. They are the source for the overwhelming bulk of Canadian news actually consumed by the Canadian public.
Name a single "independent media" that is your holistic all Canadian media and journalism? The Rebel and its dozens of readers?
>If Meta and Google don't withdraw from the market
Then people can go to cbc.com, nationalpost.com, ctvnews.com, etc. That people ever relied upon Google or Facebook as an intermediary of news was folly.
Can you walk me through what you think will happen please?
In addition any deals these tech companies have already voluntarily made with Canadian news media will be terminated, since the companies have to choose all or nothing. They can't do anything at all with news content from any Canadian news publisher, unless they're willing to pay every news publisher. So there's no point in keeping those ongoing content deals active.
I don't know if that'd qualify as "absolutely destruction", but it seems hard to believe there wouldn't be a negative impact.
I think it's true that Canadian media orgs are generally in favour of this new law, correct me if I'm wrong. Why would they if this would destroy their business model? Or is the revenue from the people that will effectively be excluded not significant enough after all?
How in the world will the government use force to make them stay in the news business in Canada? Do you realize how absurd that is and draconian and just terrible?
Or are these just assumptions?
Google opened BardGPT to everyone on the planet except for a few despotic governments....and Canada. Their stated reasoning was "regulatory uncertainty". That is farce.
Oil companies are one of the most taxed industries. Google is not an oil company either.
These country restrictions came out months before the bill. They are completely unrelated.
Norway benefits 10-fold more from their oil reserves than Canada does. Oil companies have been spectacularly profitable exploiting Canada, yet still there are "woe are the oil company" sorts that are easily leveraged.
I hardly want to talk about oil companies, but it's a perfect example of where Canada being a small country that is easily exploited by mega multinationals comes into play.
>These country restrictions came out months before the bill. They are completely unrelated.
Google originally restricted BardGPT to just the US and the UK. They just opened it up to the world, barring only a couple of embargoed countries...and Canada. Do you understand the discussion you're actually taking part in?
The oil industry is heavily taxed now.
Things are more complex then you understand. Running around full of panic because facebook or google might not carry Canadian corporate news connecting it to other decisions is foolish. Buy a subscription if you truly care most are better off with less of that kind of news.
Utterly bizarre. Is your account some sort of experiment at having Bard write replies? Nothing you've said has made any sense or even been contextual with the discussion.
Funny to call criticism of this bill 'bootlicker sorts' - when really your then defending the governments protection of the Canadian media oligarchy
Every LLM has serious copyright concerns that manifest in every nation on the planet. There is no scenario where C-18 has any relevance to this. They're all going to be sued by everyone all over the place and we'll see how it ends up.
>when really your then defending the governments protection of the Canadian media oligarchy
I have almost zero interest in the C-18 discussion. It has appeared on here countless times and I have made zero comments on it. I do chuckle when I see people say obviously nonsensical things (a common one is that Google makes no money from scraping news -- if Google is doing something, they are, or are trying to, make money from it), but whatever.
Even in this discussion I haven't defended the law whatsoever, as I just don't know enough about it. And nowhere did I say that criticism of it makes someone a bootlicker, so this is all a strawman regardless.
If you don't understand C-18 that's fine - but then you can't confidently say that it can't apply to Bard. Seems pretty clear based on how C-18 is written that it absolutely could.
You have the ability to doublethink here to the point of arguing is likely pointless - but clearly by saying Google knows they can 'weaponize the bootlicker sorts' you are calling people who criticize this bill 'bootlicker's.
Even Google isn't claiming it is... It is pretty ironic that you repeatedly claim that a bill is directly responsible for it when Google, despite being in a very public fight about it, isn't even claiming this.
"but clearly by saying Google knows they can 'weaponize the bootlicker sorts' you are calling people who criticize this bill "
Clearly I did not. Ever. You are strawmanning in a way that is absolutely agains the spirit of HN and is grossly unproductive. Attacking me as thinking in "doublethink" (because you inject your own strawman interpretations) isn't productive.
Criticize the bill all you want! But if Google throws a tantrum about it because it threatens a revenue pipeline, doing the "See, this is what you get!" bit is being a bootlicker. Mega corps always have the eager sort ready to tow the line for them and do the dirty work for them.
Except that they never cited the bill in any discussion on this. Such an easy target, but it is never mentioned despite incredibly aggressive lobbying and public posturing by Google. Instead it is the grab all "this government is mean, and if you're a bootlicker you run forth and tell everyone how mean they are!" sort of statement because it can't easily be refuted for being garbage.
So super clear.
And for that matter, amazing C-18 has caused no issues for any of Google's competitors when it comes to LLMs. "Incredible".
>who also just said they don't know enough about C-18 to comment on it
I love that you think this is an attack. I said I don't care enough about it to hold an opinion (much less a strong one), unlike so many. But a corporate tantrum is the most obvious thing in the world, and Google is clearly having a corporate tantrum. And given that I'm not a pathetic bootlicker, I don't immediately look to rationalize for them.
Every comment has a context. When Google decided to bar their second rate product from Canada, C-18 was the motive (as I clearly stated in my root comment), but clearly legally it had no relevance or Google would have actually cited it.
See, corporations love to target specific things. If C-18 prevented BartGPT from coming to Canada, Google would absolutely have cited it given their public fight. But they didn't (despite your claims about how clear this is). Instead they did the classic hand-wavy something-something bit that no legal analysis can actually refute. It riles up the bootlickers, while everyone else is going ???.
It's a tantrum. I am tired of your rhetoric, strawmanning and poor set logic responses so this will be the final time I respond to you.
You're calling anyone who might disagree with Canada and agree with Google "bootlicker sorts" (I see no other way to interpret your original comment) and now you're doubling down about people "ready to tow the line for them" and "do the dirty work for them".
That's "grossly counterproductive". Please don't call names or insinuate that commenters are doing "dirty work" here.
You may want to re-read HN guidelines, especially the parts "Edit out swipes", "please reply to the argument instead of calling names", and "Assume good faith."
Again. Christ. Honest question: How can people so lacking at basic set logic actually function in this field?
If you need to manufacture the position of the person you're "arguing with", take a break from the internet.
Though it's actually telling that a couple of people felt personally attacked by a general statement. I generally referred to people who carry corporate water as bootlickers, and several people took that personally. Maybe that's something to reflect on.
>You may want to re-read HN guidelines
Amazing.
> And given that I'm not a pathetic bootlicker, I don't immediately look to rationalize for them.
If you don’t want to imply that you think this about anyone taking Google’s side, maybe use some more nuanced language. Just a suggestion.
Frankly, it seems to me that you want it both ways — to insult people who disagree with you but then hide behind some purely technical sense in which you didn’t.