nostr:npub1g57ze9t87qkn63zm6yzcf8zlzsldgn5c8v3eq8sc3s7q383ht52sgky839 nostr:npub18du50m8zn9swg344uj78800t094v4mt2ncdluh6j35y7g684chhqyn9g4e I think the general assumption would be that Canadians would be angry at Meta and use Facebook less. We had MPs calling for people to boycott it! IME my fellow Canadians were overall anti-Facebook and pro government on the topic, but in the end they clearly just don’t care (or already weren’t using Facebook).

Aside from that, the whole law presumed that Facebook was benefiting from news, so if it had no effect on traffic, it seems to disprove the main premise.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

nostr:npub1wkmpu3lummw8ewuq6g0uqdyxejecvdpk92frt2ys50nn55ldf54qqe37zl we know from the research that people don't primarily use Facebook for news, and the company has reportedly done research showing that reducing news in people's feeds is better for engagement. And boycotting critical social infrastructure is very difficult, unless people are supported to migrate relationships elsewhere. Finally, Facebook doesn't make money on traffic, it makes money on targeted ads. So it's hard to know what the effect has been on revenue.