You certainly can sue: "The ruling comes after Meta sued Italy’s national telecommunications regulatory agency (AGCOM) in Italian court in 2023"; that's the normal process for disputing regulatory rulings. Doesn't mean you'll win though.

I'm very much in two minds about this because "news" is not a morally neutral category in itself, such as with similar laws benefiting News Corp in Australia, but it's clear that Meta/FB is a much worse unrestrained actor.

▲

werhf a month ago | parent | next [-]

I'm also not happy that news organizations get special exceptions. It is very easy to construct cynical motives:

- Politicians need the news so journalists are protected.

- If news organizations get paid, they have no incentive to be AI critical.

The article says that "news are vital". So is open source, films, images, art, and the authors do not get paid by the thieves.

▲

dataflow a month ago | parent | next [-]

> The article says that "news are vital". So is open source, films, images, art, and the authors do not get paid by the thieves.

"Vital" does not merely mean "important".

▲

340q7 a month ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

	▲	dataflow a month ago \| parent [-]
		> Open source is vital, the others are too for normal people except for the autists who downvote on a technicality. Was there really no better way to say you disagree than insulting everyone who disagreed with you?

▲

lokar a month ago | parent | prev [-]

I view it as protecting a group of producers from a monopoly (or at least dominant) buyer.

▲

lokar a month ago | parent | prev [-]

But there is real, broad competition between news outlets.