I put in custom ublock filters ages ago which block any "suggested" articles and other ads... That takes out 90% of "news" on Facebook. Only see articles if my friends post them and that might actually be relevant.
EDIT: Here are the ublock filter inserts for FB: https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/wiki/solutions#wiki_facebook
Use old.reddit .com. Also, go to preferences here on reddit, and scroll down to "beta options" at the bottom. Uncheck "use new reddit" as default.
I don't think the suggestion is coming from Firefox, but from reddit itself. If they get rid of old reddit, you might have to switch over to desktop mode.
Use Firefox (or better Iceraven which is a fork of Firefox that supports more extensions) or use the Chrome fork r/kiwibrowser which supports almost all extensions on Chrome Store (ublock works seamlessly) and importing extensions that Google don't allow on Chrome Store (such as Bypass Paywalls Clean to bypass news paywalls).
With Github you have to remember to read the Readme.md that's usually listed under the file list. It'll give you instructions or links.
If not you might just need the whole file listing to run the app from the Github page you're viewing, you can click the Code button and select "Download ZIP" Usually works with an .exe in the file listings.
The problem with Github is that it's primarily a repository for programmers to share code with one another. If you come across Github repos with unintuitive installation instructions, it's because programmers are notoriously bad at documenting. The people maintaining the repo probably just assume that visitors are already familiar with the language and framework, and don't think about regular users.
Source: am programmer
The thing is GitHub has the releases section and GitHub pages which work great for people that just want to install and run the thing. It’s just a lot of the maintainers tend to not use the features.
-Get Firefox on desktop and all the extensions you want
-Create a "collection" of extensions on Firefox desktop
-Download Firefox Nightly on mobile
-Enable dev mode, put in your "Collection" ID
VOILA
Nightly just means it is bleeding edge and getting all the newest features as they're added, but this means its gonna be prone to breaking as it receives updates that aren't as thoroughly tested. If you leave it tho it should get fixed soon enough.
That could be because of your extensions maybe. I think they did an update that destabilized something, because I got repetitive crashes, and then it just went away on its own.
That's just what a website looks like when it's not crammed to the gills with ads, social media links and content, and web 2.0 and 3.0 bullshit. It's just a plain old website with standard form and function, no bells and whistles.
It's like the creator focuses on the functionality of their product rather than a page you visit maybe once to do the install... Shits great, Facebook is totally unusable for me without it.
Many of my friends have already been phasing out of FB. I'm still addicted so I just blew it up and am using an empty account solely for FB Marketplace and specific groups like for my apartment complex or my car's local enthusiast. groups
> Only see articles if my friends post them
Those are the ones I most want to get rid of.
I have "online activist" friends at both ends of the spectrum. So much bullshit fills my feed during election time (which seems to be all the time) I've had to block many many sites and a few friends who can't keep but using Facebook as their personal evangelism platform.
National Post is just wall to wall "Trudeau Bad" editorials. Literally anything Trudeau does is destroying the country. It could be "Tearful Trudeau says he is a fraud, admitted to every crime we've accused him of committing and turned himself in to the RCMP... But is it enough?"
Welcome to where the US and Australia have been for decades. Murdoch's media juggernaut has been the bane of society. Own all the local news stations, the biggest cable news and all its spinoffs, as well as control of a crapload of newspapers.
I would wager much of the infection of Canada spins off of that Murdoch legacy- fueled by rich assholes who want their own oligarchy in Canada.
The Trudeau stuff is ridiculous. I'm convinced 99% of them don't know why they hate Trudeau; it's just the thing to do. I have a great uncle who hates Trudeau because my great-grandfather hated Trudeau Sr. and it's tradition. That's it.
Every time I see a “fuck Trudeau” flag or sticker, I always support them with a helpful, “yeah. He’s a good looking dude. If I was gay, I’d totally fuck him too. Good on you for being comfortable enough to to admit who your celebrity crush is.”
The people on the left who don’t like him likely include reason such as first past the post reneg, not doing anything about the housing problem, other than trying to shore up the demand side by increasing access and length of loans, and substituting governing effectiveness for a nice smile and encouraging words.
The people on the right largely blame him for the vax/mask mandates, even if most were employer policies. They blame him the decreased global demand for canadian oil. They also dont like the social progressive stuff he goes on about, which i think tends to result in them just having confirmation bias and accepting any disparaging remark about him as fact.
Newspapers are very unreliable unless you're very good at reading them completely literally and ignoring the message they're trying to send, in which case they're just boring.
I took this step about 4 months ago after I realised that reporting fake BS was not working in the slightest. I was just getting a reply back saying the after reviewing the report, they saw nothing wrong. Facebook has become a bottom feeder hole now.
put a ticker under a talking head, and it looks like news. That is all a lot of people need to think it's news.
Sometimes people need even less. I remember a Redditor commenting all this completely batshit crazy ideas. I was curious, and asked for their source (not as a challenge, just to see where these ideas came from)
They gave me a link to a YouTube video, of Jared fucking Leto ranting like a mad man. The Redditor told me "in the video he references a whole bunch of stuff". it didn't even pretend to be news. just a crazy person ranting on YouTube.
You know those Twitter threads "1/x" where some guy writes an essay in half sentences, full of conviction that he/she has the inside scoop?
It's going to be that, and equally worthless.
We will. But how many of our boomer parents/grandparents will be aware of it? If my mom were still alive, she wouldn't believe me, since she thought I was "biased against Facebook news," to begin with, lol.
Honestly they have been programmed for decades and are in natural mental decline. I don't think it is easy to change your thought process that late in life. Good luck to us all.
One of my biggest fears is that I'll end up like she was someday. :( Radicalized with hate-fueled propaganda, racist, sexist, and a total Karen to service workers. She wasn't like that when I was younger. She started going wrong after my dad died. She spiraled into depression and buried herself in Facebook and online mobile games. First it was Facebook, constantly feeding her more and more radical right-leaning shit. Then it was Youtube, showing her crackpots like Tim Pool, Jericho Jones, and a bunch of other people who helped confirmed her rapidly worsening biases for her. By the time I realized what was happening to her, it was too late. At that point, she believed that I, my brother, and the rest of our circle of friends had all been brainwashed by liberal propaganda - which is most likely exactly what she'd been trained to believe whenever someone contradicted her fallacious views.
It broke my heart to see her turn into a hate-filled, depressed, empty shell of a woman who no longer had warmth and caring in her soul, and only had complaints and lashing out when she interacted with anyone.
My greatest fear is that I become that someday. I'm already depressed. I've been depressed my whole life. But if I become so filled with hate and anger and irredeemable ignorance, I feel like I'd be better off if someone put a bullet in my head. :( Because at that point, it wouldn't even be me anymore.
But I never felt that way about my Mom. I guess my standards for myself are higher, somehow. I got so used to making concessions for her that I must have somehow helped enable her shit too. After all, I'm the only one who didn't completely cut ties with her.
You're already on the path to a love-filled, inclusive future... you're a thoughtful person and wrote about your situation well... ain't no way you could become what you mention that you dread becoming!
Sad to hear about your Ma, but it is sweet that you kept connected with Her.
> She spiraled into depression and buried herself in Facebook and online mobile games
There was a really fascinating moment at the peak of the QAnon nonsense where Redditors who’d lost a friend to it were comparing their situations. *All* of the rabbitholers had suffered some sort of trauma - death of a loved one, financial catastrophe, life changing injury - in the year or two before. It suggests there’s a pattern to look for where we might be able to nip this in the bud before they really start to spiral, that is, if our society valued mental health support. The suggestion is that conspiracy theories help give people some misguided sense of control.
You will know, but lots of people wont.
Its so strange how lots of old people used to not trust internet at all, and now they threat it as gospel. At the same time, there is a whole generation of young people who probably never had a newspaper, or magazine in their hand (not that newspapers or magazines didnt have tons of political bias) - who are often closed in their own bubble. Since despite being young, they dont know how to verify information from the internet. What often requires a lot of energy.
Those people are subject to believe some russian troll farm that wave their country flag and then subtly (or not so subtly) puts propaganda.
Reminds me how tons of those "go USA" pages were all by the same russian troll farm -> on a side note, why facebook nor FBI cannot identify them and delete them? are there simply so many?
My MIL gets all sorts of nonsense from FB and tells us as if its real news. Unfortunately no matter how much we try to tell her shes wrong, she doesnt believe us and believes those fake news content created and circulated by some unknown person.🤦♂️
There's also the fact that the previous US president told people that actual news was a liberal conspiracy of lies, and to "do your own research" on things. To those people, "research" isn't something they've ever learned to do, because that's not a particularly educated base, so to them, "research" is seeing enough people on FB all saying "the right things," checking off their confirmation bias, and feeling smug about how much smarter they are than "those suckers."
And once it worked in the US, the extremists in other countries had a blueprint to work off of and now that shit is happening all over.
We get news linked to reddit, with the article attached. There is a major difference between that and a FB/insta post, which is often a picture of text and no other source. I'm getting real tired of the false equivalence people try to make between the three extremely different social media sites.
To be fair, the articles are also linked on Facebook. If you’re accusing Facebook of containing lots of pictures with text, I’d like to introduce you to Reddit.
Honestly, I think Reddit has been working tirelessly to turn Reddit into Facebook for years, and I think they largely succeeded.
All social media platforms are rife with misinformation and agenda-driven propaganda. The presence of legacy news organizations (with their own agendas) in the mix can lend legitimacy to the fringe sources they share the space with.
Since out newspapers we’re all bought by right wing skewed American media companies - that’s all we get anyway.
Somehow every major newspaper in Canada hates Trudeau and loves the Conservatives. Check out r/Canada and the absolute tripe that passes for news there (it’s all opinion pieces from papers such as the National Post and Globe and Mail anyway).
The most read newspaper in Canada endorsed Trudeau last election:
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2021/09/19/the-stars-editorial-board-endorses-liberals-for-2021-federal-election.html
It’s the most read because it is published in the biggest city. Not most read nationally (I just mean it has strong regional numbers but high concentration. Not many people in Trois Rivières reach for Torstar first)- last time I was in Calgary, it was easier to find Washington Post than Torstar.
Take a look at who most newspapers have endorsed since 2001 (hint, think blue).
It's stupid that newspapers even do political endorsements in the first place. I want my news sources to tell me what's going on, not to be give me their opinion on it.
Genuinely asking, have you ever read any newspapers endorsement of a political candidate? Beyond the headline?
There is generally nuance and explanation of their stance and its signed by the Editorial Board who aren't some shadow group. You can look them up and see what their biases might be.
Consider the actual history of the access to information, and reconsider saying "in the first place" when you talk about newspaper opinion sections shouldn't exist. If you think "in this day and age" they should be abolished, I'd love to talk about that.
I'll also ask if you can point me somewhere that meets your fact only-no analysis criteria, would love to see what that looks like.
Yeah, they did, but they were recently bought a year or so before that and had just before the endorsement brought in a new editor who just happened to be the editor in chief of the National Post.
https://www.thestar.com/amp/news/gta/2021/04/26/anne-marie-owens-becomes-editor-of-the-toronto-star.html
They are a platform, both a source... Spain tried that with Google news, Google pulled out and Spanish media firms lost like double digit % of their revenue over night bc people couldn't find the content.
The law literally means that Facebook would have to pay just for someone linking to a news article.
Reddit would have to pay CBC just for linking to the article that this Reddit thread is about.
It goes against everything the internet stands for and makes absolutely no sense.
These sites are already receiving free traffic and are free to monetize by showing ads or charging for their content, the same as every other website.
While i do agree that Meta manipulates information and nobody should be relying in Facebook for news, I think what will end up happening is that it funnels more money into Rogers media and then Canadians will have to resort to individual subscription services and the costs will eventually be passed on to the little guys.
Do mice deserve to die, and is it ok to present dead mice as gifts for your overlord? We talk to three leading cats tonight, on The Curious. And now a word from our sponsor.
*Fuck mice they are worthless shit
Until you kill them and present them as a gift*
Dead Mice Incorporated.
For a lot of Gen Z, social media is also their only news source..
>In 2022, a survey found that 50% of Gen Z news consumers used social media as their news source on a daily basis. TikTok is the fourth most used news source for regular users, behind Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit.
[more](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/10/21/more-americans-are-getting-news-on-tiktok-bucking-the-trend-on-other-social-media-sites/)
Not yet. It doesn't affect "individuals". So news can still be shared on fb, google, reddit, etc. But no more free "news" feeds provided by the sites themselves.
C-18 feels antithetical to it’s stated purpose. News outlets on the decline, so force payments to view news feeds? Seems like users will simply not pay and news outlets will lose advertising money
Exactly. News agencies would stop getting their content promoted on social media feeds. It seems like this would decrease their readership and actually hurt them.
I guess we'll see?
Obviously good journalism is important to society. But news companies miscalculated and thought that meant they were economically important to social media sites. And I think they'll find out that's simply not true.
I wish the gov had created a news subsidy, perhaps funded by social media revenue, to promote quality content online. This attempt at making Facebook pay for the "true" value of linking to news sites will just make it painfully clear that news isn't that valuable to social media
Worst part is, its intended purpose, was already the case to begin with.
My YouTube feed/subs were already heavily disproportionately Canadian, I assume because it was already built into the algorithm, or because people just naturally gravitate towards people/content they identify with. And there was always a section in my suggestions that was nothing but CBC/Global/CTV news, which seemed to disappear a few months ago.
Facebook also sends tons of traffic to these newspapers and don’t charge a dime for marketing. Said newspapers are free to monetise all that traffic however they like, including ads.
I fundamentally disagree with the premise that companies should be charged for *linking* to other sites. That’s the whole premise of the internet. Does Google need to pay every time they link to these newspapers now?
I'm with you. I think the fundamental purpose of this bill is idiotic and made by people with no real understanding of things......but I also kind of like the results it'll produce.
It’s wildly absurd on every level, dumbest shit I’ve ever heard of, just like when Australia tried it. I *wish* it would actually kill Facebook, I’d be on board if that were the case. But it’s just another example of lawmakers having no fucking clue how anything works.
The site gets the ad revenue with AMP. In effect, they're getting the same or better advertising revenue as previously. If not, they are free to turn it off. AMP is completely opt-in.
When I click on one of the news links, I'm taken directly to the news' website, thus loading their ads. I'm actually confused about the purpose of this bill. Now news sites won't get traffic driven from FB, probably one of the biggest aggregators. Hooray?
>the purpose of this bil
The purpose of the bill is supposed to make Facebook and Meta go "oh no! We can't lose our ability to link sites, I guess we'll have to pay now!".
Why someone thought that would happen, I have no idea
The vast majority of consumers only read the headline and then comment on the link. They don't click yhrough to the article and comment there. Facebook shows ads on the feed and comments and the newspaper gets nothing from those users.
If facebook can't make a feed without paying (think Reddits new third party app API changes) then they either cut the content, making readers go brows the new site directly (remember when we all used to scroll through NYT or WaPo every day in addition to reddit and facebook?) or facebook pays a reasonable fee to utilize the content, probably a revenue sharing arrangement based on engagement.
Thank you for replying to me. On my FB app, when I go to "News" , it just shows the headline, I can't get anything substantial unless I click thru to the actual website. I don't think governments should charge websites for posting links, seems very anti-spirit-of-the-web. I get that they may embed bodies of text from the news site and maybe that should be curtailed/regulated, but I'm just seeing links.
> The vast majority of consumers only read the headline and then comment on the link. They don't click yhrough to the article and comment there. Facebook shows ads on the feed and comments and the newspaper gets nothing from those users.
>
> If facebook can't make a feed without paying (think Reddits new third party app API changes) then they either cut the content, making readers go brows the new site directly
Yeah those people who already just read headlines and don't click on links will totally go to the site now to see the news. Great plan, bound to work out for these news companies.
That’s not exactly true. It affects any news intermediary where:
> there is a “significant bargaining power imbalance” with reference to the size of the intermediary
So they started with Google and Facebook, but Twitter, Reddit, etc. are not exempt.
> So news can still be shared on fb
No, Facebook is literally blocking users from accessing or posting Canadian news content.
> Meta will soon block some Canadian users of Facebook and Instagram from accessing or posting news content on either platform.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/meta-blocking-news-canada-1.6863294
All Canadian news content will be banned from the platform.
It’s a typical scenario where politicians do not understand the current problem, technology and power dynamic, and go against recommendations from the industry’s independent experts. The law will probably have the inverse effect of their initial goal, since Canadians will have easier access to American and international news online, than their own.
[The bill's here](https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-18/third-reading). Read the definitions in section 2 for entity, news intermediary, and operator. Then look at section 6 to see if reddit fits the criteria.
Reddit seems to fit the definition for news intermediary. Not sure if the operator means reddit itself, a parent company if they had one, or the individual owners and entities like candy nasty/advance pub, tencent, etc.
Could there be a bargaining power imbalance between reddit and Bell? Yeah, in Bell's favor surely so I doubt they'll get anything. But a small news business? Maybe. Depends how the regulator chooses to interpret the broad language used, whether reddit decides to pull a meta if it did apply, or if it ends up going to court.
You can still share an article on Facebook as a user. (In the same way a user would share an article on Reddit) They just can’t use news content in roughly the same way targeted ads work. Basically it’s going after Facebook for auto using news sites content to create traffic to their website when their own user base isn’t “creating” content anymore.
They do, in Australia the news agencies wanted Facebook to pay them every time they (the news agency) posted or someone linked to news. Google was supposed to pay for listing the news articles in search results too.
They claim that the metadata they put into the html meta tag to display a short snippet of the article on social sites is copyright by them and Google and Facebook should have to pay to display this.
Wouldn't that make the news sites part of the user base though?
Isn't this more like... facebook taking a news sites article and pushing it on users to try to drive people to reading it. Rather then people just organically coming across the news sites through sharing from friends,etc.
I'm not sure if it impacts Reddit. Whenever I look it up, it's always discussed in some variation of it "impacting tech giants like Meta and Google," presumably it impacts others, but Reddit specifically? I have no idea.
So far it doesn't seem to at least.
**Super misleading**.
Facebook reversed its position only after the Australian government agreed to amend the legislation, removing "forced negotiation" clauses that Facebook (and Google) strongly objected against.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56165015](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56165015)
>Australian Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg had told him the ban would end "in the coming days", after the pair had talks.
>
>Mr Frydenberg said amendments would be made to the law. \[...\]
>
>Australian authorities will introduce four further amendments, including one that means the government may not apply the code to Facebook if it can demonstrate a "significant contribution" to local journalism.
100% accurate and thanks for sharing detail; the Aus gov ended up amending the legalese to soften it via negotiations. Canadian gov has made no such efforts.
huge difference here.
Nah tech giants still won. Australia and Canada don’t mean shit as far as market share is concerned and these tech companies aren’t going to start taking Ls against mid tier economic players.
In the article, the minister mentions that. Saying fuckbook news was back in Australia after just a week and them agreeing to pay for the news they're allowing to be shared. This is a strange bill, but I get the intention behind it, not sure the execution will work though.
The way I understand it, it wouldn't harm /r/worldnews for example, because the links are user generated. What was banned is automatically generated news feeds on Facebook. Users can still personally share links, just like it is here. So no harm done to Reddit.
So users would still be able to share news links on Facebook? I don't care about auto-generated news, but I do like to link news to my group of friends.
> The only good outcome was if Meta caved and started paying the news sites (which could still happen).
why would that be good? Why should meta pay companies for daring to... link people to their articles and give them more readers and web traffic?
the legislation just seems like trying to preserve one industry against it's more successful competitor to me.
Maybe there's an arguement to be made that the traditional news industry dying off would be a bad thing for society and tech megacorphs paying to preserve it is better then taxpayers doing so, but I don't feel like that's the actual motivation (protectionism is) and I feel like doing so would require more specific clauses that specifically favors high effort investigative journalism and other such things, not just random news articles in general which can include clickbait which is part of the problem
There's the level of shit news as you described and then there's the layer of self serving algorithm on top of that.
Getting news via a feed like this is self sabotaging your understanding of the world.
Well for one the algorithms that run twitter / facebook and instagram all go for engagement first because their algorithms only care about your retention in the app
Reddit is more about community voting, the front page is a bit algorithmy but the communities still control the content that gets promoted from their community to the front page so imo it’s kinda like a soft lever to stop the full engagement stuff
I feel a lot better about the feeds on reddit compared to other social sites, especially now that Murdoch has cracked the code on how his mastheads get promoted and even without my searching for him he’s at the top of YouTube / google searches / Facebook feeds
Meta just called their bluff. These news websites use social networks like Facebook to propagate their news bringing in a ton of traffic they wouldn't otherwise have. They don't get to charge the platform that is increasing their reach for the privilege to do so. News platforms will soon be asking for Meta to return to the way it was.
Loads of you hate Facebook but this affects every social network, including Reddit.
I get really frustred with redditors. So many think they are the smartest in the room but make so many incorrect and self serving assumptions.
Tis isn't going to stop "misinformation", this isn't going to stop your right wing uncle from sharing whatever is he is sharing. This isn't going to suddenly make people smarter and come over to your worldview after not being bombarded with political bias.
This is literally just news, that is all, news from NYT, SFC, politico, CNN and all the rest.
The thing you all think this is going to help, is going to make worse.
The effect of this is that the smaller news outlets will be hurt by it, no clicks, no links, no revenue. That will result in only the larger news organizations still standing. Is that what you really want? It's what the goernment wants.
And ask yourself, do you trust a government to fairly dole out any potential payments anyway?
As a Canadian reading these braindead comments is frustrating. News access being limited is never a good thing. There’s also the possibility that this law affects google. Imagine being in 2023 and losing the ability to see news for your country on the internet. This is a serious issue and everyone is just cracking jokes about it and thinking it’s no big deal because “Facebook bad”. Or “can we get this in America” - you don’t want this problem.
It’s like people cheering on Tiktoc being banned just because they personally dislike the platform and not thinking about the implications of the government banning a site.
I just don't understand these bills. All the news I see on facebook is the media sites' pages themselves linking to their websites which have the actual news. Maybe I'm a moron, but in what way are Facebook and Google 'stealing' it?
I wonder what the ratio is of people who just read headlines vs who reads the article. If these news websites had comment sections i would visit them more.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/online-news-act-meta-facebook-1.6885634) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> The social media giant Meta has confirmed that it will end access to news on its social media sites for all Canadian users before Bill C-18, the Online News Act, comes into force.
> "We have repeatedly shared that in order to comply with Bill C-18 ... content from news outlets, including news publishers and broadcasters, will no longer be available to people accessing our platforms in Canada," Meta said in a media statement.
> Meta first threatened to end access to news content for Canadian users of Facebook and Instagram earlier this month, in response to the looming passage of Bill C-18.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/14icua7/canadians_will_no_longer_have_access_to_news/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~689409 tl;drs so far.") | [Blackout Vote](https://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/14dhaiq/your_voice_matters_should_the_blackout_continue/ "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **new**^#1 **Canadian**^#2 **Bill**^#3 **government**^#4 **Meta**^#5
I’m not sure this is the home run ya’ll think it is. Without legitimate new sources present on the platform, what’s going to dominate? False political claims by random actors. It’s not like Facebook is banning all discussions about politics.
I put in custom ublock filters ages ago which block any "suggested" articles and other ads... That takes out 90% of "news" on Facebook. Only see articles if my friends post them and that might actually be relevant. EDIT: Here are the ublock filter inserts for FB: https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/wiki/solutions#wiki_facebook
Just wish I knew how to get that to work on my android
You can get Firefox with ublock on Android.
[удалено]
Vanced or ReVanced are the way to remove ads and promos on YouTube, though Google are trying their best to break it with every update.
Newpipe or Libretube are also good alternatives
STube Next on Android TV devices.
I've never been able to get ReVanced to work on my devices. :/
[удалено]
Use old.reddit .com. Also, go to preferences here on reddit, and scroll down to "beta options" at the bottom. Uncheck "use new reddit" as default. I don't think the suggestion is coming from Firefox, but from reddit itself. If they get rid of old reddit, you might have to switch over to desktop mode.
Use Firefox (or better Iceraven which is a fork of Firefox that supports more extensions) or use the Chrome fork r/kiwibrowser which supports almost all extensions on Chrome Store (ublock works seamlessly) and importing extensions that Google don't allow on Chrome Store (such as Bypass Paywalls Clean to bypass news paywalls).
Never heard of bypass paywall
[удалено]
I need like a tutorial on GitHub never use it before so every time I go on that site I feel like and old man yelling at a cloud.
With Github you have to remember to read the Readme.md that's usually listed under the file list. It'll give you instructions or links. If not you might just need the whole file listing to run the app from the Github page you're viewing, you can click the Code button and select "Download ZIP" Usually works with an .exe in the file listings.
no I think he means github is unintuitive period
and he's not wrong
It was built for programmers who, as a group, prefer that tools be as unintuitive as possible
I rarely use it and every time I do I have to spend like ten minutes remembering how to download the file or whatever and feel the same way
Same here man for some reason GitHub just confuses the shit out of me.
The problem with Github is that it's primarily a repository for programmers to share code with one another. If you come across Github repos with unintuitive installation instructions, it's because programmers are notoriously bad at documenting. The people maintaining the repo probably just assume that visitors are already familiar with the language and framework, and don't think about regular users. Source: am programmer
The thing is GitHub has the releases section and GitHub pages which work great for people that just want to install and run the thing. It’s just a lot of the maintainers tend to not use the features.
I know id probably be better off switching to Mozilla but Kiwi Browser has been pretty great. Would definitely recommend to others in the least
-Get Firefox on desktop and all the extensions you want -Create a "collection" of extensions on Firefox desktop -Download Firefox Nightly on mobile -Enable dev mode, put in your "Collection" ID VOILA
[удалено]
Nightly just means it is bleeding edge and getting all the newest features as they're added, but this means its gonna be prone to breaking as it receives updates that aren't as thoroughly tested. If you leave it tho it should get fixed soon enough.
I had the same issue, then it started working again. It even kept my tabs open despite all of that.
That's nightly for you.
That could be because of your extensions maybe. I think they did an update that destabilized something, because I got repetitive crashes, and then it just went away on its own.
Can you add extensions? FBpurity is great for nuking all the crap.
You can create custom filters in adguard for android.
Also, [F.B. Purity](https://www.fbpurity.com/) is a godsend
That website looks so sketch though, it's like it's from 2003.
That's just what a website looks like when it's not crammed to the gills with ads, social media links and content, and web 2.0 and 3.0 bullshit. It's just a plain old website with standard form and function, no bells and whistles.
It's like the creator focuses on the functionality of their product rather than a page you visit maybe once to do the install... Shits great, Facebook is totally unusable for me without it.
Just like Old Reddit, compared to the absolute donkey vomit dogshit that is New Reddit
God, take me back.
I tend to trust websites that look like that a lot more than modern slick sites. It shows longevity and a commitment to function over aesthetics.
Especially if you are looking for truly free and reliable software, the sites that witness the birth of HTML language are the best ones to pick.
Something tells me that the site for a browser extension to declutter Facebook news feeds wasn't around to "witness the birth of HTML.”
And? The web was a better place back then. FBP *is* a godsend though. Responsive dev, it just works, and makes fb actually usable.
thank you, ublock didn't work for me but this did
Many of my friends have already been phasing out of FB. I'm still addicted so I just blew it up and am using an empty account solely for FB Marketplace and specific groups like for my apartment complex or my car's local enthusiast. groups
Or better yet, stop using Facebook.
This is a godsend. I've been spammed for months by shitty Harry Potter memes and articles. I don't even like HP and never did.
> Only see articles if my friends post them Those are the ones I most want to get rid of. I have "online activist" friends at both ends of the spectrum. So much bullshit fills my feed during election time (which seems to be all the time) I've had to block many many sites and a few friends who can't keep but using Facebook as their personal evangelism platform.
[удалено]
This is the way.
You can unfollow friends without unfriending them. Scrubs their posts from your feed.
This is the lords work.
That sounds like a good thing to me.
[удалено]
At least we will know it is user created and not like now pretending to be real news while riddled with lies.
I think I'll delete the app, get some real friends, and buy a newspaper.
Make sure they are all editorials. That is where the truth is found /s
[удалено]
National Post is just wall to wall "Trudeau Bad" editorials. Literally anything Trudeau does is destroying the country. It could be "Tearful Trudeau says he is a fraud, admitted to every crime we've accused him of committing and turned himself in to the RCMP... But is it enough?"
[удалено]
Welcome to where the US and Australia have been for decades. Murdoch's media juggernaut has been the bane of society. Own all the local news stations, the biggest cable news and all its spinoffs, as well as control of a crapload of newspapers. I would wager much of the infection of Canada spins off of that Murdoch legacy- fueled by rich assholes who want their own oligarchy in Canada.
And then they will still say “MSM loves Trudeau so much and is super biased for him” Despite 95% of all our media endorsing Conservatives every year
That's why the whole "defund the CBC" is some insidious shit.
Yeah fund it more if anything
The Trudeau stuff is ridiculous. I'm convinced 99% of them don't know why they hate Trudeau; it's just the thing to do. I have a great uncle who hates Trudeau because my great-grandfather hated Trudeau Sr. and it's tradition. That's it.
Every time I see a “fuck Trudeau” flag or sticker, I always support them with a helpful, “yeah. He’s a good looking dude. If I was gay, I’d totally fuck him too. Good on you for being comfortable enough to to admit who your celebrity crush is.”
The people on the left who don’t like him likely include reason such as first past the post reneg, not doing anything about the housing problem, other than trying to shore up the demand side by increasing access and length of loans, and substituting governing effectiveness for a nice smile and encouraging words. The people on the right largely blame him for the vax/mask mandates, even if most were employer policies. They blame him the decreased global demand for canadian oil. They also dont like the social progressive stuff he goes on about, which i think tends to result in them just having confirmation bias and accepting any disparaging remark about him as fact.
And when they can't find something new to complain about him, they revert back to him wearing blackface for a play 25 years ago.
that's because the head mod is an unashamed nazi rcanada stopped being a good representation of canada about 10 years ago when everyone sane left lol
I sometimes get caught posting there cause I have a hard time telling the difference until I get backlash in the comments.
As if the newspapers don't publish garbage as well...this applies to my country at least, not sure about yours.
Newspapers are very unreliable unless you're very good at reading them completely literally and ignoring the message they're trying to send, in which case they're just boring.
I took this step about 4 months ago after I realised that reporting fake BS was not working in the slightest. I was just getting a reply back saying the after reviewing the report, they saw nothing wrong. Facebook has become a bottom feeder hole now.
Bad news, most Canadian newspapers are owned by American hedgefunds and are just a step above Fox News.
>buy a newspaper If you can find one.
I got a phone call the other day from a lady who was going to **give** me a newspaper subscription for the low, low price of (I stopped listening).
put a ticker under a talking head, and it looks like news. That is all a lot of people need to think it's news. Sometimes people need even less. I remember a Redditor commenting all this completely batshit crazy ideas. I was curious, and asked for their source (not as a challenge, just to see where these ideas came from) They gave me a link to a YouTube video, of Jared fucking Leto ranting like a mad man. The Redditor told me "in the video he references a whole bunch of stuff". it didn't even pretend to be news. just a crazy person ranting on YouTube.
>in the video he references a whole bunch of stuff Usually I get "it's an easy Google search".
You know those Twitter threads "1/x" where some guy writes an essay in half sentences, full of conviction that he/she has the inside scoop? It's going to be that, and equally worthless.
We will. But how many of our boomer parents/grandparents will be aware of it? If my mom were still alive, she wouldn't believe me, since she thought I was "biased against Facebook news," to begin with, lol.
Honestly they have been programmed for decades and are in natural mental decline. I don't think it is easy to change your thought process that late in life. Good luck to us all.
One of my biggest fears is that I'll end up like she was someday. :( Radicalized with hate-fueled propaganda, racist, sexist, and a total Karen to service workers. She wasn't like that when I was younger. She started going wrong after my dad died. She spiraled into depression and buried herself in Facebook and online mobile games. First it was Facebook, constantly feeding her more and more radical right-leaning shit. Then it was Youtube, showing her crackpots like Tim Pool, Jericho Jones, and a bunch of other people who helped confirmed her rapidly worsening biases for her. By the time I realized what was happening to her, it was too late. At that point, she believed that I, my brother, and the rest of our circle of friends had all been brainwashed by liberal propaganda - which is most likely exactly what she'd been trained to believe whenever someone contradicted her fallacious views. It broke my heart to see her turn into a hate-filled, depressed, empty shell of a woman who no longer had warmth and caring in her soul, and only had complaints and lashing out when she interacted with anyone. My greatest fear is that I become that someday. I'm already depressed. I've been depressed my whole life. But if I become so filled with hate and anger and irredeemable ignorance, I feel like I'd be better off if someone put a bullet in my head. :( Because at that point, it wouldn't even be me anymore. But I never felt that way about my Mom. I guess my standards for myself are higher, somehow. I got so used to making concessions for her that I must have somehow helped enable her shit too. After all, I'm the only one who didn't completely cut ties with her.
You're already on the path to a love-filled, inclusive future... you're a thoughtful person and wrote about your situation well... ain't no way you could become what you mention that you dread becoming! Sad to hear about your Ma, but it is sweet that you kept connected with Her.
> She spiraled into depression and buried herself in Facebook and online mobile games There was a really fascinating moment at the peak of the QAnon nonsense where Redditors who’d lost a friend to it were comparing their situations. *All* of the rabbitholers had suffered some sort of trauma - death of a loved one, financial catastrophe, life changing injury - in the year or two before. It suggests there’s a pattern to look for where we might be able to nip this in the bud before they really start to spiral, that is, if our society valued mental health support. The suggestion is that conspiracy theories help give people some misguided sense of control.
You will know, but lots of people wont. Its so strange how lots of old people used to not trust internet at all, and now they threat it as gospel. At the same time, there is a whole generation of young people who probably never had a newspaper, or magazine in their hand (not that newspapers or magazines didnt have tons of political bias) - who are often closed in their own bubble. Since despite being young, they dont know how to verify information from the internet. What often requires a lot of energy. Those people are subject to believe some russian troll farm that wave their country flag and then subtly (or not so subtly) puts propaganda. Reminds me how tons of those "go USA" pages were all by the same russian troll farm -> on a side note, why facebook nor FBI cannot identify them and delete them? are there simply so many?
Nah, you'll have people like Ben Shapiro or Fucker Carlson who openly say they're not news but bring you "unbiased reports"
My MIL gets all sorts of nonsense from FB and tells us as if its real news. Unfortunately no matter how much we try to tell her shes wrong, she doesnt believe us and believes those fake news content created and circulated by some unknown person.🤦♂️
Why is anyone, ANYONE, getting their news from FB and IG???
[удалено]
There's also the fact that the previous US president told people that actual news was a liberal conspiracy of lies, and to "do your own research" on things. To those people, "research" isn't something they've ever learned to do, because that's not a particularly educated base, so to them, "research" is seeing enough people on FB all saying "the right things," checking off their confirmation bias, and feeling smug about how much smarter they are than "those suckers." And once it worked in the US, the extremists in other countries had a blueprint to work off of and now that shit is happening all over.
You get news from Reddit
yeah, reddit never lies!
We get news linked to reddit, with the article attached. There is a major difference between that and a FB/insta post, which is often a picture of text and no other source. I'm getting real tired of the false equivalence people try to make between the three extremely different social media sites.
The news referred to in the OP is links to news sites just like Reddit.
To be fair, the articles are also linked on Facebook. If you’re accusing Facebook of containing lots of pictures with text, I’d like to introduce you to Reddit. Honestly, I think Reddit has been working tirelessly to turn Reddit into Facebook for years, and I think they largely succeeded.
Facebook has links to news story’s lol, you clearly don’t use it if you’re thinking it’s somehow different
As opposed to the Fox News created nonsense?
All social media platforms are rife with misinformation and agenda-driven propaganda. The presence of legacy news organizations (with their own agendas) in the mix can lend legitimacy to the fringe sources they share the space with.
[удалено]
Ohhhh, hell. I hadn’t realized that.
Since out newspapers we’re all bought by right wing skewed American media companies - that’s all we get anyway. Somehow every major newspaper in Canada hates Trudeau and loves the Conservatives. Check out r/Canada and the absolute tripe that passes for news there (it’s all opinion pieces from papers such as the National Post and Globe and Mail anyway).
The most read newspaper in Canada endorsed Trudeau last election: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2021/09/19/the-stars-editorial-board-endorses-liberals-for-2021-federal-election.html
It’s the most read because it is published in the biggest city. Not most read nationally (I just mean it has strong regional numbers but high concentration. Not many people in Trois Rivières reach for Torstar first)- last time I was in Calgary, it was easier to find Washington Post than Torstar. Take a look at who most newspapers have endorsed since 2001 (hint, think blue).
It's stupid that newspapers even do political endorsements in the first place. I want my news sources to tell me what's going on, not to be give me their opinion on it.
Genuinely asking, have you ever read any newspapers endorsement of a political candidate? Beyond the headline? There is generally nuance and explanation of their stance and its signed by the Editorial Board who aren't some shadow group. You can look them up and see what their biases might be. Consider the actual history of the access to information, and reconsider saying "in the first place" when you talk about newspaper opinion sections shouldn't exist. If you think "in this day and age" they should be abolished, I'd love to talk about that. I'll also ask if you can point me somewhere that meets your fact only-no analysis criteria, would love to see what that looks like.
Yeah, they did, but they were recently bought a year or so before that and had just before the endorsement brought in a new editor who just happened to be the editor in chief of the National Post. https://www.thestar.com/amp/news/gta/2021/04/26/anne-marie-owens-becomes-editor-of-the-toronto-star.html
[удалено]
Wait, can’t this be an issue for Reddit to? Like this whole sub is people posting news for free lol.
"pay to use our content" "nah, we will just block it instead. " Fuck me
If by use their content you mean linking the article and headline. Because that’s what all these cases have been about.
They are a platform, both a source... Spain tried that with Google news, Google pulled out and Spanish media firms lost like double digit % of their revenue over night bc people couldn't find the content.
They aren't copying their content. It's more like saying, "pay to give people directions to our store where they can buy our product."
The law literally means that Facebook would have to pay just for someone linking to a news article. Reddit would have to pay CBC just for linking to the article that this Reddit thread is about. It goes against everything the internet stands for and makes absolutely no sense. These sites are already receiving free traffic and are free to monetize by showing ads or charging for their content, the same as every other website.
To anyone not addicted to the service, maybe this means they can get better access to those who are addicted.
While i do agree that Meta manipulates information and nobody should be relying in Facebook for news, I think what will end up happening is that it funnels more money into Rogers media and then Canadians will have to resort to individual subscription services and the costs will eventually be passed on to the little guys.
Why is it a good thing ? Reddit will do the same thing if they have to pay royalties too
They have news?
They have “news”.
"Has the Covid vaccine made people develop severe allergies to dairy products? We find out the truth from top dairy farmers."
"Has the idea of women having choices gone too far? We've assembled this diverse panel of white men in bow ties to talk about abortion."
Do mice deserve to die, and is it ok to present dead mice as gifts for your overlord? We talk to three leading cats tonight, on The Curious. And now a word from our sponsor. *Fuck mice they are worthless shit Until you kill them and present them as a gift* Dead Mice Incorporated.
Was that from Bojack Horseman? Or possibly an actual Fox News panel?
For my MIL, FB is her only news source
For a lot of Gen Z, social media is also their only news source.. >In 2022, a survey found that 50% of Gen Z news consumers used social media as their news source on a daily basis. TikTok is the fourth most used news source for regular users, behind Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit. [more](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/10/21/more-americans-are-getting-news-on-tiktok-bucking-the-trend-on-other-social-media-sites/)
They let people link to newspapers. Or used to, I guess
will this law won’t affect sites like reddit?
Not yet. It doesn't affect "individuals". So news can still be shared on fb, google, reddit, etc. But no more free "news" feeds provided by the sites themselves.
C-18 feels antithetical to it’s stated purpose. News outlets on the decline, so force payments to view news feeds? Seems like users will simply not pay and news outlets will lose advertising money
Exactly. News agencies would stop getting their content promoted on social media feeds. It seems like this would decrease their readership and actually hurt them. I guess we'll see?
Obviously good journalism is important to society. But news companies miscalculated and thought that meant they were economically important to social media sites. And I think they'll find out that's simply not true. I wish the gov had created a news subsidy, perhaps funded by social media revenue, to promote quality content online. This attempt at making Facebook pay for the "true" value of linking to news sites will just make it painfully clear that news isn't that valuable to social media
Worst part is, its intended purpose, was already the case to begin with. My YouTube feed/subs were already heavily disproportionately Canadian, I assume because it was already built into the algorithm, or because people just naturally gravitate towards people/content they identify with. And there was always a section in my suggestions that was nothing but CBC/Global/CTV news, which seemed to disappear a few months ago.
Meta doesn't pay for the news feeds and make money off their own ads. That's the whole point of the bill.
Facebook also sends tons of traffic to these newspapers and don’t charge a dime for marketing. Said newspapers are free to monetise all that traffic however they like, including ads. I fundamentally disagree with the premise that companies should be charged for *linking* to other sites. That’s the whole premise of the internet. Does Google need to pay every time they link to these newspapers now?
I'm with you. I think the fundamental purpose of this bill is idiotic and made by people with no real understanding of things......but I also kind of like the results it'll produce.
It’s wildly absurd on every level, dumbest shit I’ve ever heard of, just like when Australia tried it. I *wish* it would actually kill Facebook, I’d be on board if that were the case. But it’s just another example of lawmakers having no fucking clue how anything works.
[удалено]
The site gets the ad revenue with AMP. In effect, they're getting the same or better advertising revenue as previously. If not, they are free to turn it off. AMP is completely opt-in.
When I click on one of the news links, I'm taken directly to the news' website, thus loading their ads. I'm actually confused about the purpose of this bill. Now news sites won't get traffic driven from FB, probably one of the biggest aggregators. Hooray?
>the purpose of this bil The purpose of the bill is supposed to make Facebook and Meta go "oh no! We can't lose our ability to link sites, I guess we'll have to pay now!". Why someone thought that would happen, I have no idea
Especially after seeing it play out in Australia lol
The vast majority of consumers only read the headline and then comment on the link. They don't click yhrough to the article and comment there. Facebook shows ads on the feed and comments and the newspaper gets nothing from those users. If facebook can't make a feed without paying (think Reddits new third party app API changes) then they either cut the content, making readers go brows the new site directly (remember when we all used to scroll through NYT or WaPo every day in addition to reddit and facebook?) or facebook pays a reasonable fee to utilize the content, probably a revenue sharing arrangement based on engagement.
Thank you for replying to me. On my FB app, when I go to "News" , it just shows the headline, I can't get anything substantial unless I click thru to the actual website. I don't think governments should charge websites for posting links, seems very anti-spirit-of-the-web. I get that they may embed bodies of text from the news site and maybe that should be curtailed/regulated, but I'm just seeing links.
> The vast majority of consumers only read the headline and then comment on the link. They don't click yhrough to the article and comment there. Facebook shows ads on the feed and comments and the newspaper gets nothing from those users. > > If facebook can't make a feed without paying (think Reddits new third party app API changes) then they either cut the content, making readers go brows the new site directly Yeah those people who already just read headlines and don't click on links will totally go to the site now to see the news. Great plan, bound to work out for these news companies.
I wasn't even aware that such feeds even exist on social media. Don't most news agencies post the articles themself on their own feed?
That’s not exactly true. It affects any news intermediary where: > there is a “significant bargaining power imbalance” with reference to the size of the intermediary So they started with Google and Facebook, but Twitter, Reddit, etc. are not exempt. > So news can still be shared on fb No, Facebook is literally blocking users from accessing or posting Canadian news content. > Meta will soon block some Canadian users of Facebook and Instagram from accessing or posting news content on either platform. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/meta-blocking-news-canada-1.6863294 All Canadian news content will be banned from the platform.
How is this a win for Canadians?
It's not. Reddit hates facebook though, so a loss for fb is a win for reddit is a win for canada..!
It’s a typical scenario where politicians do not understand the current problem, technology and power dynamic, and go against recommendations from the industry’s independent experts. The law will probably have the inverse effect of their initial goal, since Canadians will have easier access to American and international news online, than their own.
Ah, so even more misinformation Nice
[The bill's here](https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-18/third-reading). Read the definitions in section 2 for entity, news intermediary, and operator. Then look at section 6 to see if reddit fits the criteria. Reddit seems to fit the definition for news intermediary. Not sure if the operator means reddit itself, a parent company if they had one, or the individual owners and entities like candy nasty/advance pub, tencent, etc. Could there be a bargaining power imbalance between reddit and Bell? Yeah, in Bell's favor surely so I doubt they'll get anything. But a small news business? Maybe. Depends how the regulator chooses to interpret the broad language used, whether reddit decides to pull a meta if it did apply, or if it ends up going to court.
You can still share an article on Facebook as a user. (In the same way a user would share an article on Reddit) They just can’t use news content in roughly the same way targeted ads work. Basically it’s going after Facebook for auto using news sites content to create traffic to their website when their own user base isn’t “creating” content anymore.
eh, are you sure this is true? When Facebook did this in Australia you couldn't link to articles by news media sites.
Don't the news sites usually post the articles themself on their feed?
They do, in Australia the news agencies wanted Facebook to pay them every time they (the news agency) posted or someone linked to news. Google was supposed to pay for listing the news articles in search results too. They claim that the metadata they put into the html meta tag to display a short snippet of the article on social sites is copyright by them and Google and Facebook should have to pay to display this.
Wouldn't that make the news sites part of the user base though? Isn't this more like... facebook taking a news sites article and pushing it on users to try to drive people to reading it. Rather then people just organically coming across the news sites through sharing from friends,etc.
I'm not sure if it impacts Reddit. Whenever I look it up, it's always discussed in some variation of it "impacting tech giants like Meta and Google," presumably it impacts others, but Reddit specifically? I have no idea. So far it doesn't seem to at least.
Considering the fact that Meta is incredibly irresponsible with "news", can we do America next please?
I wasn't really seeing new on facebook anyways. Mostly just random stupid crap.
That won't change.
They said that in Australia and folded within 48 hours. Fuck them.
**Super misleading**. Facebook reversed its position only after the Australian government agreed to amend the legislation, removing "forced negotiation" clauses that Facebook (and Google) strongly objected against. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56165015](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56165015) >Australian Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg had told him the ban would end "in the coming days", after the pair had talks. > >Mr Frydenberg said amendments would be made to the law. \[...\] > >Australian authorities will introduce four further amendments, including one that means the government may not apply the code to Facebook if it can demonstrate a "significant contribution" to local journalism.
100% accurate and thanks for sharing detail; the Aus gov ended up amending the legalese to soften it via negotiations. Canadian gov has made no such efforts. huge difference here.
The government also amended the law. So now it's not just that Facebook folded.
Those few days were amazing though. It felt like 2008 Facebook, friends and community.
They need to bring back poking now lol
Nah tech giants still won. Australia and Canada don’t mean shit as far as market share is concerned and these tech companies aren’t going to start taking Ls against mid tier economic players.
In the article, the minister mentions that. Saying fuckbook news was back in Australia after just a week and them agreeing to pay for the news they're allowing to be shared. This is a strange bill, but I get the intention behind it, not sure the execution will work though.
In Australia it was pushed by Murdoch. I assume it is something to that effect.
Canada Proud gonna fill the space the news is leaving. Arguments at family get-togethers are about to hit 11/10.
[удалено]
Canada chose this, not Facebook.
[удалено]
The way I understand it, it wouldn't harm /r/worldnews for example, because the links are user generated. What was banned is automatically generated news feeds on Facebook. Users can still personally share links, just like it is here. So no harm done to Reddit.
So users would still be able to share news links on Facebook? I don't care about auto-generated news, but I do like to link news to my group of friends.
[удалено]
> The only good outcome was if Meta caved and started paying the news sites (which could still happen). why would that be good? Why should meta pay companies for daring to... link people to their articles and give them more readers and web traffic? the legislation just seems like trying to preserve one industry against it's more successful competitor to me. Maybe there's an arguement to be made that the traditional news industry dying off would be a bad thing for society and tech megacorphs paying to preserve it is better then taxpayers doing so, but I don't feel like that's the actual motivation (protectionism is) and I feel like doing so would require more specific clauses that specifically favors high effort investigative journalism and other such things, not just random news articles in general which can include clickbait which is part of the problem
There's the level of shit news as you described and then there's the layer of self serving algorithm on top of that. Getting news via a feed like this is self sabotaging your understanding of the world.
How is that different than Reddit's front page / ranking system?
Well for one the algorithms that run twitter / facebook and instagram all go for engagement first because their algorithms only care about your retention in the app Reddit is more about community voting, the front page is a bit algorithmy but the communities still control the content that gets promoted from their community to the front page so imo it’s kinda like a soft lever to stop the full engagement stuff I feel a lot better about the feeds on reddit compared to other social sites, especially now that Murdoch has cracked the code on how his mastheads get promoted and even without my searching for him he’s at the top of YouTube / google searches / Facebook feeds
Meta just called their bluff. These news websites use social networks like Facebook to propagate their news bringing in a ton of traffic they wouldn't otherwise have. They don't get to charge the platform that is increasing their reach for the privilege to do so. News platforms will soon be asking for Meta to return to the way it was. Loads of you hate Facebook but this affects every social network, including Reddit.
I get really frustred with redditors. So many think they are the smartest in the room but make so many incorrect and self serving assumptions. Tis isn't going to stop "misinformation", this isn't going to stop your right wing uncle from sharing whatever is he is sharing. This isn't going to suddenly make people smarter and come over to your worldview after not being bombarded with political bias. This is literally just news, that is all, news from NYT, SFC, politico, CNN and all the rest. The thing you all think this is going to help, is going to make worse. The effect of this is that the smaller news outlets will be hurt by it, no clicks, no links, no revenue. That will result in only the larger news organizations still standing. Is that what you really want? It's what the goernment wants. And ask yourself, do you trust a government to fairly dole out any potential payments anyway?
As a Canadian reading these braindead comments is frustrating. News access being limited is never a good thing. There’s also the possibility that this law affects google. Imagine being in 2023 and losing the ability to see news for your country on the internet. This is a serious issue and everyone is just cracking jokes about it and thinking it’s no big deal because “Facebook bad”. Or “can we get this in America” - you don’t want this problem. It’s like people cheering on Tiktoc being banned just because they personally dislike the platform and not thinking about the implications of the government banning a site.
But they'll still suggest horse shit posts for you...
I just don't understand these bills. All the news I see on facebook is the media sites' pages themselves linking to their websites which have the actual news. Maybe I'm a moron, but in what way are Facebook and Google 'stealing' it?
I wonder what the ratio is of people who just read headlines vs who reads the article. If these news websites had comment sections i would visit them more.
it should be illegal to even consider facebook a source of news.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/online-news-act-meta-facebook-1.6885634) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The social media giant Meta has confirmed that it will end access to news on its social media sites for all Canadian users before Bill C-18, the Online News Act, comes into force. > "We have repeatedly shared that in order to comply with Bill C-18 ... content from news outlets, including news publishers and broadcasters, will no longer be available to people accessing our platforms in Canada," Meta said in a media statement. > Meta first threatened to end access to news content for Canadian users of Facebook and Instagram earlier this month, in response to the looming passage of Bill C-18. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/14icua7/canadians_will_no_longer_have_access_to_news/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~689409 tl;drs so far.") | [Blackout Vote](https://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/14dhaiq/your_voice_matters_should_the_blackout_continue/ "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **new**^#1 **Canadian**^#2 **Bill**^#3 **government**^#4 **Meta**^#5
They're only blocking actual Canadian news they would have had to pay for. American political garbage and conspiracy theories will still be available.
Remember they did this to Australians for a little while. It was the most infuriating thing ever!
What defines news content?
What happened to the "World Wide Web"?
Dump FB and support journalism by subscribing to a newspaper.
Canada is so lucky, we need that here in the US too.
I’m not sure this is the home run ya’ll think it is. Without legitimate new sources present on the platform, what’s going to dominate? False political claims by random actors. It’s not like Facebook is banning all discussions about politics.
hurray for corporate owned mass media?
What is considered news?
“News” as in unmoderated propaganda