> First joke is that there are three prisoners in the gulag in the former Soviet Union. The three find out why each of them is there. The first said that he came late to work and was accused of cheating the State out of labor. The second guy said that he came early and was accused of trying to out-compete his comrades. The third guy said that he came to work everyday and exactly on time, and the KGB accused him of owning a Western wristwatch.
> Second joke is that there are three prisoners in the U.S. They were all in jail for economic crimes of violating monopoly laws. First guy said that he charged higher prices than anyone else and the government then accused him of price gouging and profiteering. Second guy charged lower prices than anyone else and they accused him of predatory and cutthroat pricing. And the third guy said that he charged the same prices as everyone else and they accused him of collusion and price fixing.
How is it anti competitive for Meta to exit the market? In fact, it’s opening up the market to anyone else who can make a valid business case and still pay the fees demanded by these news organizations, so i would say it’s more pro competition. Can someone explain the anti competition angle?
> "Meta's practices are clearly designed to discipline Canadian news companies, prevent them from participating in and accessing the advertising market, and significantly reduce their visibility to Canadians on social media channels," the CBC said in a joint statement with the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and News Media Canada, a trade organization that represents newspapers.
> "Meta's anticompetitive conduct, which has attracted the attention of regulators around the world, will strengthen its already dominant position in advertising and social media distribution and harm Canadian journalism," the statement read.
> "The applicants ask the Competition Bureau to use its investigative and prosecutorial tools to protect competition and prohibit Meta from continuing to block Canadians' access to news content."
There's plenty of social media where you can share the news, and whose content might be predominantly driven by it, e.g. Reddit and Twitter.
On the other hand, Facebook was made to be a site for connecting friends and family. Is it really made that much better for anyone other than news media companies to have the news available on Facebook? People have been complaining for years about Facebook's deterioration for its original purpose. If Facebook wants to, for example, shift to promoting more content about users' personal lives and experiences over short-term engagement-maximising ragebait, why should they be stopped? The idea of requiring Facebook to continue acting as an agent of social harm in order to shore up the profits of a few news media companies seems rather perverse.
This is a weird one, I think Meta made the right move. I am not a fan of Meta at all but I accept their position in this matter over the Canadian government and private media companies.
> Second joke is that there are three prisoners in the U.S. They were all in jail for economic crimes of violating monopoly laws. First guy said that he charged higher prices than anyone else and the government then accused him of price gouging and profiteering. Second guy charged lower prices than anyone else and they accused him of predatory and cutthroat pricing. And the third guy said that he charged the same prices as everyone else and they accused him of collusion and price fixing.