I'm really quite fine with this experiment happening.
An experiment is when you have a hypothesis about something that could be improved or optimized, test the hypothesis with a subset to find evidence or observe unintended effects of the change, replicate the finding, scale up, or revert depending on the outcomes observed.
A national policy by fiat is somewhat the opposite of what I consider an experiment to be.
Those organizations, being Canadian news organizations, employing Canadians, and making content for Canadian consumers. Aren't those the sort of organizations that should be able to work with the Canadian government and influence Canadian laws?
What sorts of organizations instead of those ones should be able to work with the government here? I think legislation should have outside influence, but I think I'm missing something here, or making the mistake of taking things at face-value.
You can make the same argument about local companies lobbying the government to enact tariffs to protect them from foreign competitors. The people being harmed are the same: consumers who end up with a worse product. How about nobody tries to influence the Canadian government to enact laws that distort the marketplace to their advantage?
Why the hell would I care if the people who are trying to basically legislate themselves into profitability are Canadian or not?
There is no such thing. This regulation is the consequence of a regularly passed law (Bill C-18), that passed with about 210 to 110 majority. If I remember public poling on the issue correctly, on the bill itself popular opinion was pretty evenly split, but the underlying principle of tech companies paying domestic news, had wide majority support.
Framing this as something being imposed on citizens is disingenuous and effectively the Facebook PR line. Just with related media laws anywhere else it has little basis in reality.
(edit: as an aside, I just want to clarify that when I write “lizard people”, I mean to suggest politicians and corporate leadership acting out of self-interest rather than implying a bigoted conspiracy theory. I realized this could come off as anti-semetic in 2023; sorry if that landed poorly for anyone)
As part of the process, the parliamentary committee released a survey asking questions like
* Independent candidates should be able to be elected to Parliament
* The current electoral system adequately reflects voters' intentions
* Seats should be allocated in proportion to the percentage of votes received by each political party
* Voters should elect local candidates to represent them in Parliament
* The current electoral system should be changed
* There should be parties in Parliament that represent the views of all Canadians, even if some are radical or extreme.
* Governments should have to negotiate their policy decisions with other parties in Parliament, even if it is less clear who is accountable for the resulting policy.
* It is better for several parties to have to govern together than for one party to make all the decisions in government, even if it takes longer for government to get things done.
I cant think of any western country with a more (effectively) non linear response of seats vs. vote share than Canada.
Because we do that now. "News" sites with independent journalist filled with misinformation. Aunt Marge telling you what happened, only putting a religious slant on it.
And I can pretty well promise that neither Aunt Marge nor the "news" sites are going to have any news on the war in another country that your neighbor's son just died in, nor a drought that has affected wheat prices globally or things like that.
It isn't that professional journalists always get things right, but its better than Aunt Marge and the "news" sites out there.