That is what CB left me with. The article (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/alphabet-google-committee-block-summon-1.6762908) gives us “A parliamentary committee is calling four of Google’s top executives to appear before it after the company began testing ways it could block news content from searches if Parliament passes the Online News Act.” And this MP Julian, perhaps MP Julian Assange? No, my bad. It was MP Peter Julian. You see, we do not get the proper setting. And it is not on Google. We are given “Google’s actions have been irresponsible. Google’s actions amount to censorship and Google’s actions are disrespectful of Canadians.” I do not think this is true and because some politicians are trying to remain as vague as possible, issues and question remain, but the people who are pushing this are the remnants of William Randolph Hearst and they all should become as obsolete and buried as Hearst is now.
They lost credibility and they lost integrity, but that is not how we need to proceed. You see the article gives us “All types of news content are being affected by the test, which will run for about five weeks, the company said. That includes content created by Canadian broadcasters and newspapers. An Australian law similar to C-18 took effect in March 2021 after talks with the big tech firms led to a brief shutdown of Facebook news feeds in the country. The law has largely worked, a government report said.” Well, not exactly, has it?
You see, we are given one line, but it is not one line, it is a document with many paragraphs, many facetted paragraphs. But the politicians do not want to go there, do they?
This is the first example. It comes from Twitter. The LA Times gives us the heads up, but it is not that, when we click on it it becomes a block. An advertisement block and the LA Times is not alone. So, did we accept that FREE advertisement by the LA Times? That is the question and it is not a simple one line answer.
The second example is Google search, I wanted something on Bundaberg (where the good rum comes from) and I looked at the news, the top part is what I saw and there is nothing wrong with reading about youthful enthusiasm in medicine, so I clicked on the article, but was I informed? No! I got an invitation to PAY for the article. Lets be clear, it might be OK for newspapers to allow this approach, but is it up to Google Search to cater to free advertisement? These two examples are the tip of a mountain a lot bigger than the ice-block that sank the Titanic, but the article as well as PM Julian are keeping us in the dark about it. There are others like the Guardian, the Dutch NOS, BBC, CBC and many others that do not use this approach, but for news outlets that cater to this approach we see a different catering and I think that Facebook and Google get to block these players. They newspapers are making claims of loss of revenue, but they advertise in this way, so is blocking all the question? I do not think so, but I am not on the board of directors of Google (even after I was able to hand them close to $20,000,000,000 in revenue). Ah well, another day, another dollar.
The block setting is not that simple and these politicians are nowhere neat ready to properly look at this. They want their cowboy story and Google is the nasty evil, but that is not true, it was never true. But then the politicians involved could never figure this out, but that is how I see it, and I accept that others have a different point of view. That is fair, I can only give you my point of view and perhaps it will stir questions, perhaps it will not.