I’m mostly with you Jimmy, but I wouldn’t give Facebook a pass. Governments around the world have been trying to engage with Google and Facebook for a long time now to address issues such as tax loopholes and their monopoly positions, only to be given the runaround.
This legislation is monumentally dumb, but I get the sense that the government is legitimately clueless about what to do here. Mind, Scotty seems pretty clueless about everything.
There are some legitimate issues with Google and Facebook publishing material that is copyrighted by others. In the news context, recall Google and Facebook’s news summaries with an image and synopsis from the provider. Copyright providers might consent, but with Google and Facebook being monopolies third parties have no leverage. I think the legislation would have been better if it involved advertising revenue sharing when third party IP is used, with further legislation that prevents the companies prejudicing their algorithms against people who want to be compensated for their IP. So, they could stop showing images and summaries, but they would have to do it consistently for all. A competitor who is happy to pay so they can use the IP of others to improve user experience could then emerge and use that as a point of differentiation.
By tying it to advertising revenue during the search, you keep it fair as companies would be awarded royalties in proportion to their relevance. My 2c