Choosing between Threads and Twitter is like choosing between two pitfalls. Speaking of these platforms, commentators have brought up the classic image of Charybdis and Scylla. Two monsters with insatiable appetites.
The Canadian government wants to force Google and Facebook to pay royalties to the press companies whose news they relay. Faced with this bill (C-18), the giants are fighting back. They show the muscles, tense on their miraculous profits.
Originally, the Internet was meant to be a free space. But some saw it as a lucrative opportunity. Under the guise of free services, they set up machines to siphon our personal lives. The most distressing part of the affair is that their power depends on our participation. More of the responsibility, however, lies with institutional users.
The traditional media continue to direct the audience on a daily basis towards these competitors, whom they denounce on certain platforms. […] Likewise, governments of all levels contribute to the success of these traps. Recently, I was shocked by the presence of a large format billboard in the heart of my municipality. The municipal administration invited citizens to visit its Facebook page, thus promoting the company of Mark Zuckerberg, with the money from our taxes.
In his article “An Internet without Google or Facebook” (The duty, July 8), Alain McKenna points out that it is possible to slip away from these braggarts. The columnist lists some existing alternative options, browsers, search engines and others, but does not advance on a possible new paradigm.
I see two possible solutions. First, with sufficient government assistance, a coalition of traditional media and non-profit organizations could develop a truly social media offering on the web. Then, since the network of networks is a collective good, the profits made through the exploitation of this resource should go to the State. Companies like Alphabet and Meta would then have to negotiate to obtain royalties corresponding to their contribution.