We can't let our impression of how things should play out be determined by asking which self-serving powerful player deserves the right of way in policy making.
Have you not just rephrased my "right" and "wrong" as "how things should play out". I'm not sure why someone would do that.
Just because right and wrong can imply the word "should" in a hypergeneric sense doesn't mean I was talking about right of way.
I think I was responding to the idea that because the government was acting in self-serving ways, that we were necessarily cheering on Facebook, and that what facebook is doing is "standing up to...corruption", when their own efforts are a corruption of a different kind. The phrasing there made me feel like I was being made to choose--that I was either cheering for facebook or for their rivals in this situation--and I didn't feel that that choice was accurate. It's possible to think that both parties are in the wrong, even if they are on opposite sides here.
Your follow up post reinforced that feeling as it maintained the idea that one party or the other was in the right, but that post was also a direct response to what I said, and not necessarily a continuation of what you had posted earlier. So by continuing that thread I reinforced my own misinterpretation.
I will try to better understand my own reactions to people's posts in the future, and be better in responding in the appropriate context, not with a shift.
If I was an American/Euro/South American news org I'd be staffing up my Canadian journos. Any org out of reach of the backroom dealing Ottawa private school clique can probably hire some local freelancers and fill the void by the end of the year.
Regardless, Canada isn’t protecting people from facebook. They didn’t ban news sharing, they just wanted to give their media companies a cut.