swaniefrmreddeer: Good. F*ck Zuckerturd. Hope it hits twitter just as hard. Double f*ck musky.

Nope, Canada is in the wrong here this is just protectionism. You should have to go to CBC.com or ctv or bumfarkontarionews.com to get THEIR ads and THEIR tracking cookies so they can in turn pay taxes to Canada.

Hint: Fark.com would be running afoul of the law too, it's just that no one cares because you're not going to extort a lot of money out of the site.

Lexx: SMB2811: swaniefrmreddeer: Good. F*ck Zuckerturd. Hope it hits twitter just as hard. Double f*ck musky.

Nope, Canada is in the wrong here this is just protectionism. You should have to go to CBC.com or ctv or bumfarkontarionews.com to get THEIR ads and THEIR tracking cookies so they can in turn pay taxes to Canada.

Hint: Fark.com would be running afoul of the law too, it's just that no one cares because you're not going to extort a lot of money out of the site.

News aggregators basically have a stream of free journalism that supports their business; those journalists are dying on the vine.

Go look at a newspapers and see why journalism is dying. People stopped buying newspapers long before Google and Facebook news showed up, and it was because they were full of ads instead of news. This law is literally just 'you have to see our ads.'

News aggregators are just link aggregators, or in the case of Google News, their search engine limited to news websites. To read the news story, you have to go click on the link and get redirected to the original page. You will also however see that same story from 30 other sources and in the case of Fark, a discussion link. So if yours sucks, people won't go to it. That's the problem this law tries to solve. When users have choice they read somewhere else but the Canadian site that sucks still wants the ad impressions.

This isn't going to save journalism, but that's not the intention anyway.