I mention Google because the Heritage Minister has specifically said this law is for Facebook and Google, and applies to (only) them
That's reasonable, but I think comes with the obligation to mention that G isn't blocking news yet while FB already is doing so. Otherwise, there's the potential to spread misinformation (namely, that folks will read the comments and think that G is already blocking news or had blocked news of the wildfires, which isn't true).
I don't use anything Google, so I don't see their news links.
Normally reasonable. But in this specific case, doing something to fact check if G is actually blocking news yet might have been a good idea.
That said, I'll make it easy for you. I assume that I, and any other readers, can take your lack of a statement on this (with a statement being something like "Yes, G isn't blocking news yet" or "No, G has definitely started blocking news of the wildfires") as a tactic acknowledgement of and agreement with my previous statement that G isn't blocking news yet.
It doesn't matter whether they have to pay now. The law says they have to pay a link tax, so they've decided to stop linking - that is their right, and why wait until the last second? They derive little benefit from it anyways.
Makes sense for FB. WIth G I am less convinced - G started out as a search engine company and linking was always their bread and butter.
The supposed benefit to making an exception was for the chance for FB to potentially save lives. But actually the evac managed just fine without FB's help so I'm skeptical that there was actually any benefit to FB (as there were no lives lost, FB allowing the news to be spread mathametically could not have saved any additional lives), or any benefit to repealing C-18 and asking FB to come back.