this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
86 points (97.8% liked)

Canada

7193 readers
405 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


๐Ÿ Meta


๐Ÿ—บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories


๐Ÿ™๏ธ Cities / Local Communities


๐Ÿ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


๐Ÿ’ป Universities


๐Ÿ’ต Finance / Shopping


๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ Politics


๐Ÿ Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It sound like Meta is acting preemptively to put pressure on the government.

There isn't much pressure to exert. C-18 has already received Royal Assent. The people of Canada have spoken, and this is what they want. Given that this is what Canadians have proclaimed as being what they want, why would Facebook wait?

If homicide laws were being introduced for the first time, and not yet in effect, are you going to kill a few people while you still can? Or are you going to realize that people don't like being murdered and conclude that maybe you should not do that even if the law still technically allows?

[โ€“] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The law has been passed but the actual regulations are to come.

It seems this is more about Meta not wanting to be subject to laws or courts of other countries.

The Australian version of the law would have given the minister power to designate firms, this one requires a more transparent process under regulation that would determine which firms are subject to the tax.

Some observers say that this was key point for Meta because it doesnโ€™t want to accept being subject to legislation by any country outside the US on any issue.

Legislation that uses designations by ministers or Cabinet have been an issue for Canada in the past in trade relations with other countries. Foreign investment reviews. These were claimed to be not transparent decision processes.

What evidence do we have that this is about not wanting to accept Canada having legal authority?

There have been cases where Canadian courts have made court orders on Meta and Google and they have not complied because they claim the Canadian courts do not have jurisdiction. They claim they are only subject to the law of California and the US. As examples, there have been cases where Canadian courts have ordered access to the Facebook and Google accounts of deceased persons and they have not complied.

[โ€“] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It seems this is more about Meta not wanting to be subject to laws or courts of other countries.

Clearly they're not, as you tell at the end. But at the same time they have to pay some lip service to the wants of Canadians, else they risk seeing them flee the platform.