Why Bill C-18’s Mandated Payment for Links is a Threat to Freedom of Expression in Canada - "The study into the Online News Act continues this week as the government and Bill C-18 supporters continue to insist that the bill does not involve payment for links. These claims are deceptive and plainly wrong from even a cursory reading of the bill. Simply put, there is no bigger concern with this bill... payment for links is all there is in a system purporting to compensate for a value transfer. Internet platforms don’t publish full text of news articles unless they have a licence. Moreover, the data they gather from users who might click on a news link is indistinguishable from similar data captured from millions of websites and services that Canadians click on every day. The government not only knows that Bill C-18 involves payments for links, but it also knows that the arguments regarding value for those links are exceptionally weak. To address that weakness, it has crafted the bill to force payment for links by upending copyright law and intervening in the final arbitration process... this approach represents a serious threat to freedom of expression. Links are clearly expression as they allow us to tell our friends, colleagues, and communities where they can find information of interest. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized their importance, describing links as an indispensable part of the Internet in the Crookes v. Newton case and warning that creating liability for links could impair the way the Internet functions. But with Bill C-18, the government is saying that expression using links is not equal: links to news content from sources such as Bell, Rogers, and the CBC are viewed as compensable, but similar links to news content from small media outlets are not. I don’t think there is a compelling argument that links are compensable. However, if the government maintains that they are, it cannot reasonably argue that it is only those links from large broadcasters or eligible media outlets that have value. Further, the bill effectively says that whether compensation is due also depends on where the expression occurs since it mandates that certain venues pay to allow their users to express themselves. Post a link to a Globe and Mail news article on Facebook and the government argues it has value that should be compensated, but post the same link on Twitter and the government says it doesn’t. Identical expression, but the government establishes eligibility rules that say one has value and the other does not based solely on where the expression occurs. Aside from the obvious unfairness, the broader implications of this policy are even more troubling. Once government decides that some platforms must pay to permit their users to engage in certain expression, the same principle can be applied to other policy objectives. For example, the Canadian organization Journalists for Human Rights has argued that misinformation is akin to information pollution and that platforms should pay a fee for hosting such expression much like the Bill C-18 model. The same policies can also be expanded to other areas deemed worthy of government support. Think health information or educational materials are important and that those sectors could use some additional support? Why not require payments for those links from platforms. Indeed, once the principle is established that links may require payment, the entire foundation for sharing information online is placed at risk and the essential equality of freedom of expression compromised. To be clear, supporting journalism is important. But Bill C-18’s dangerous approach ascribes value to links where there isn’t any, regulates which platforms must pay in order to permit expression from their users, and dictates which sources are entitled to compensation. This is an unprecedented government intervention into the media and freedom of expression. If the government believes that Facebook and Google should be paying more into Canada, tax them and use the funds for journalism support. If that isn’t enough, create a fund for participation in the news system with mandated contributions similar to the Cancon broadcast world. That may not be ideal, but it would at least keep the system arms length, remove the qualification issues, and reduce the market intervention. I suspect the government fears that Canadians would easily recognize the risks associated with mandated payments for links and fundamental unfairness with the system envisioned by Bill C-18. It is why it has misled on the inclusion of link payments, rejected the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s estimates on who benefits, and sought to frame Facebook’s concerns as a threat, when the real threat lies in the bill itself."
From 2022
Blocking news on Facebook is a rational response to irrational legislation - The Hub - "Facebook estimates the annual value it offers to news organizations by allowing them to post their material for free is $230 million. The Department of Heritage, the author of Bill C-18, estimates the amount the bill can generate for the entire news industry from the tech companies each year is $215 million. It is the news organizations that are already getting the better of the deal. While the government and Bill C-18 backers insist Meta is bluffing because, after a similar stance blocking news posts in Australia, it “backed down,” this isn’t true. It was the Australian government that, faced with Facebook’s boycott, amended its legislation, after which the parties signed deals that didn’t necessitate government involvement. (Meta has already indicated it is unhappy with those deals and is unlikely to renew). Bill C-18 is so invasive even the publishers that relentlessly lobbied for it through organizations such as News Media Canada were this week asking the Senate committee reviewing the bill to amend it by dialing back the extent to which it allows the CRTC to snoop into their business affairs and, in particular, their newsrooms... Meta warned Rodriguez more than a year ago that while they were willing to make deals that supported journalism, the construct of Bill C-18 left them exposed to unlimited financial liability and set a precedent that, if replicated globally, would have unsustainable consequences. The price was way too high to pay for a content category — news — that made up 3% of their traffic. Instead of listening, this government did what it always does: it sought to gain political advantage by demonizing the web giants and anyone else who dared question the wisdom of their legislative buffoonery."
Meta to end news sharing on Facebook and Instagram for Canadians | The Star - "Meta, Facebook and Instagram’s parent company, is making good on its threat to block news sharing on both platforms across Canada in response to Ottawa’s online news bill, which became law... News publishers big and small have said decisions like the one Meta took today could have devastating impacts on the news industry, possibly resulting in millions of dollars in lost revenue or ending businesses altogether."
Trudeau Likens Bill C-18 Battle To World War Two Fight for Democracy as Government Suspends Meta Advertising (But Not Liberal Party Ads) - "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau increased the rhetoric, describing Canada as having been “attacked” by Meta and likening the government’s fight over the bill to defending democracy in Ukraine or during the Second World War... There are strongly held views on both sides of the Bill C-18 debate, but the suggestion that stopping sharing news links on a social network is in any way comparable to World War 2 is embarrassingly hyperbolic and gives the sense of a government that has lost perspective on the issue."
How the government accidentally pushed the news industry into the abyss - The Hub - "It is difficult to recall a more complete public sector failure than that which Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez has engineered through his stubborn and uninformed management of the Online News Act, also known as Bill C-18. As the Globe and Mail’s Andrew Coyne succinctly summarized the situation on Twitter: “Never seen a government that so perfectly fused ruthless partisanship, ideological fanaticism and flower-child naivety.” Internet law expert and University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist was similarly concise in referring to Bill C-18 as “a massive own goal.” “Cannot overstate the harm from this: news sector loses hundreds of millions, Canadians face degraded search results and prominence of low quality sources increase,” Geist tweeted. “Blame squarely on (Rodriguez) who did not take risks of flawed C-18 seriously.” Lobbied for years by a news media industry that had seen billions of dollars in advertising shift from their suddenly less interesting products to the flashing lights and sensory balms of social media and search engines, the government of Canada decided to come to the rescue. In doing so, it might very well have killed the industry... Meta made it clear as soon as C-18 was tabled that it would have to consider no longer carrying news. Google was less public but both companies pointed out they already had commercial and other arrangements with more than 150 Canadian publishers. Meta claimed that the free delivery its platform offered had a $230 million annual value to news organizations for which it wasn’t being credited. Google put its number at $250 million. Both made it clear that Bill C-18’s structure in terms of demanding compensation on a per-link basis over which they had no control, their unlimited liability under the Act, its baseball arbitration format, unrealistic expectations from news publishers/broadcasters and the enormous financial ramifications for them globally if Canadian legislation was replicated combined to create a hill to die on for them. Their arguments were dismissed with the wave of a parliamentary hand... Google swiftly announced that it would eliminate Canadian news from its search results. And then both it and Meta started canceling the deals they already had in place with publishers big and small. The amounts are unknown as they are confidential commercial contracts, but it is fair to assume they amount to at the very least tens of millions of dollars. Jeff Elgie, CEO of Village Media, a company that specializes in digital local news startups where print has failed, had previously warned in Senate hearings that the departure of Facebook and Google from the news ecosystem would devastate his company... "The premise of the bill was that Google and Facebook ‘steal’ our content when nothing could be further from the truth.”... fixing this will require something of which there’s been scant evidence to date within this government: humility."
Australia's Standoff Against Google and Facebook Worked—Sort Of - "Australia might have created the blueprint for forcing Big Tech to pay for news, but it hasn’t actually applied it. Only tech companies that are named, or “designated,” under the code by Australia’s treasurer can be forced into the arbitration process with news organizations. But no tech site has ever been designated. Instead, Google and Facebook have been rushing to strike deals with news organizations in private, to avoid the arbitration process, which could end up being more costly. For now, the law functions more like a “loaded gun” to force these companies to make a deal, says Bernard Keane, politics editor at news website Crikey. “I wouldn't call it a threat,” says Fletcher. “What I call it is a mechanism to very strongly encourage commercial negotiation.” Allowing Google and Facebook to strike these deals behind closed doors means their terms are opaque. The deals are structured as if media outlets are being paid for contributions to products such as Google News Showcase or Facebook's News tab. “The reality is no one's really using those products,” says a source who negotiated on behalf of an Australian publisher, but asked not be named. “They're a mechanism to enable these payments to happen in such a way that doesn't fundamentally affect their business model or create a precedent that applies to other parts of the world.”"
CBC, media groups ask Competition Bureau to investigate Meta's move to block news in Canada : canada - "It didn't work in Australia. You're being gaslit. Politicians will never admit being wrong. The law in Australia was different as well, in particular offering a way to negotiate with companies on a case-by-case basis. What happened there is that the law had nuance and they were able to do some deals - which, btw, further enrichened the big tech companies. They were able to do these deals but they were ALSO able to tell the government an emphatic 'fuck off' and the government got the message. The "law," such as it is, names *NO* companies which it applies to and *NO* enforcement of that law is being done whatsoever. It's a dead issue. They will likely quietly kill it off in time because "the problem is solved."... Facebook is still saying "fuck off" and the government isn't doing anything about it. Nor will they, because they'll be (rightly) accused of a shakedown scam where end-users or creators can just post any sort of content to Facebook and demand to be paid. Here in Canada, we just jumped right in and said "you're going to pay, there will be no negotiation, get your wallets ready" and the tech companies looked at a country with 40M users led by a joke of a PM and laughed at us. As they should."
CBC, media groups ask Competition Bureau to investigate Meta's move to block news in Canada - "CBC/Radio-Canada has joined other news publishers and broadcasters in requesting that Canada's Competition Bureau investigate Meta's decision to block news content on its digital platforms in Canada, describing the social media giant's decision as "anticompetitive.""
CBC, media groups ask Competition Bureau to investigate Meta's move to block news in Canada : canada - "That's why it's so clearly a shakedown. Pablo said that these newsrooms could be getting financial support if Meta blocked these links; why would they need support if the arrangement wasn't financially beneficial for these outlets?"
"They basically want Meta to be forced to carry their news, AND THEN PAY THEM FOR IT. I'm voluntarily cutting your grass; now you're going to pay me for it... All any publisher has to do is block Google from indexing their sites; if they're this bothered by it. It's literally 1 line of code and your site disappears from the search engines. But they won't. I'm sure you can guess why."
"They link to the news sites, driving tons of traffic to them. Why do you think CBC and the Canadian legacy media are so worried now that Meta isn’t linking to them anymore?"
Meta blocked Canadian news due to bill C-18. Now Canadian media outlets want the Competition Bureau to do something about Meta blocking news content. : Canada_sub - "Shouldn’t the competition bureau be scrutinizing the government for charging only some news providers these fees? This is hilarious."
Opinion: Meta is not the biggest threat to Canadian newspapers - The Globe and Mail - "Internet freedom fighters accuse the news industry of wanting to have its cake and eat it, too. The industry pushed hard for C-18, after complaining for years that Meta and Google had been reproducing their news content for free. Yet, it is now crying foul as Meta ceases to engage in the very activity the industry claimed had been causing them so much harm... Broadcasters would be the biggest winners under C-18 if Meta and Google complied with the law by negotiating with news outlets to compensate them for using their content. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that fully three-quarters of the $329-million in annual compensation Meta and Google would be required to pay would go to the CBC, Bell, Rogers, Quebecor and other broadcasters. The CBC receives more than $1.2-billion a year from Canadian taxpayers, via the federal government, and raises almost $650-million more in advertising and subscriber fees. Its investments in online news and streaming exceed in scale anything the Canadian newspaper industry as a whole could ever match. The millions of additional dollars the CBC would reap under C-18 would likely go right back into expanding the public broadcaster’s digital footprint to the detriment of local and national newspapers. Unfortunately, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has elevated the CBC to sacred cow status, repeatedly ignoring calls to redefine the public broadcaster’s mandate."
Justin Trudeau’s attack on US tech companies is already backfiring - "The Online Streaming Act, Bill C-11, provides yet another example of the Trudeau government’s ham-fisted attempt to control digital content. This act, which received royal assent on April 27, 2023, imposes requirements on streaming services such as Disney+, Netflix, and Spotify to “clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming, in both official languages as well as in Indigenous languages.” This places the burden on American companies to compensate for the lack of popularity of Canadian media, forcing them to allocate additional resources to fulfill diversity, equity, and inclusion standards that the even Trudeau government itself does not uphold. As Canadian commentator Rex Murphy pointed out, it is disconcerting that the government believes that “saying you have virtues is the same thing as being it.” But these regulations are not really about saving Canadian news; rather, they are about exerting control over it... Disturbingly, between January 2020 and February 2023, federal staff members requested the removal of content on 214 occasions. This is evidence of a recurring pattern, showcasing the government’s desire to control online content."
Exclusive: Meta's Canada news ban fails to dent Facebook usage - "The estimates, while early, appear to support Meta's contention that news holds little value for the company... The world's biggest social media company has been trying to reduce the prevalence of news and other civic content on its platforms in recent years as it faces regulatory pressure in key markets around the world. Instead, it aims to promote lighter subjects like fashion, entertainment and sports. The shift has resulted in a dramatic reduction in news consumption via social media, according to recent reports by the Reuters Institute and Pew Research Center. Even before Meta pulled the plug on news links in Canada, Facebook referrals to a sampling of popular news sites in Canada were already down about 35% year-over-year in July and about 74% since 2020, according to Similarweb."
Liberal logic - if one side is benefiting, another side must be suffering/being oppressed. Therefore there is injustice
Meta Rejects Trudeau’s Olive Branch in Canada Online News Feud - Bloomberg - "Draft regulations published Friday say Meta and Alphabet Inc. would need to pay news outlets a minimum of 4% of their annual revenue in Canada in return for carrying links to news articles. That means the law compels Alphabet’s Google to pay about C$172 million ($127 million) annually to the news industry in Canada, while Meta’s Facebook would need to shell out C$62 million per year, according to the government’s estimates."
A 4% Link Tax: Why the Government's Draft Bill C-18 Regulations Just Increased the Chances of No News on Meta and Google in Canada - "with the government setting an astonishing floor of 4% of revenues for linking to news, the global implications could run into the billions for Google alone. No country in the world has come close to setting this standard and the question the Internet companies will face is whether they are comfortable with the global liability that would see many other countries making similar demands. The implications are therefore pretty clear: there is little likelihood that Meta will restore news links in Canada and Google is more likely to follow the same path as the Canadian government establishes what amounts to 4% link tax from Bill C-18 on top of a 3% digital services tax and millions in Bill C-11 payments... The decision to establish what amounts to a 4% link tax moves the law even further away from actual news expenditures and simply creates a significant cost for linking to news in Canada for two companies. There is no magic to the number or correlation to news production costs. Rather, the government is trying to set a new global precedent with enormous implications for the Internet in Canada and worldwide. If there is a 4% tax on news links, why not similar fees for links to health or education information? What are the risks of creating a global news sector dependent on regulated deals with two Internet companies? What response from companies now facing a 4% link tax, 3% digital services tax, and millions in Bill C-11 liability in Canada? What are the competition and access to information risks if Google and Meta will become news deserts in Canada? The answer to that last question is not in doubt: the loss of links would be devastating for media outlets and have a huge impact on Canadians ability to find and share information. The government had many options to facilitate support for the media sector but has taken the riskiest approach at every turn. Today’s regulatory announcement may have made bad situation even worse as the companies become more likely to comply with the Online News Act by stopping to facilitate access to news in Canada"
Justin Trudeau blasts Facebook for blocking news in fire-ravaged Canada - "Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau excoriated Mark Zuckerberg-run Meta as “bad for democracy” on Monday after it began blocking access to news stories on Facebook while wildfires destroy wide swaths of his country."
Democracy means extortion. But then anything Trudeau is against is a danger to democracy
Twist in Online News Act regulations could see news media owe millions to Google, Facebook - "the official confirmed that the agreements could include as compensation the value of web traffic provided by the platforms. “Non-monetary contributions can be included, if both sides agree on their value, and the official said the deals could put dollar figures on the eyes Google and Facebook send to Canadian sites.” Since Google claims to send $250 million worth of traffic to Canadian news websites a year and Meta is close behind at $230 million, this could absurdly result in Google being owed $78 million and Meta $188 million. The devil will be in the details, of course, including how to value the traffic and whether the platforms could collect any overage."
The government's online news bill can't overcome its own flawed assumptions - The Hub - "There’s a good-faith debate about whether current challenges in the world of journalism are signs of a market failure that necessitates a policy intervention or a messy yet normal market-based process of rationalizing outdated business models based on new technologies and evolving consumer preferences. We think there are useful arguments on both sides. The government has clearly sided with the former. The fact that it itself is already providing direct subsidies to “qualified” media organizations through payroll tax relief equal to fully 25 percent of their newsroom costs is a sign that it believes there’s a need for government intervention. The twist with the Online News Act is that it effectively outsources the implementation of government policy to private platforms, including, as we’ll discuss, the selection of which media organizations ought to receive financial support. It strikes us as a highly flawed way to solve for (perceived) inefficiencies in the market. If the government believes that there’s a role for the state to intervene in support of Canadian journalism, then it should do it. Canadians can debate the government’s decision and ultimately render their judgment as part of a future election. This is how democratic policymaking is supposed to work. There’s something odd about outsourcing responsibility for the government’s policy decisions to two private companies based on the dubious argument that they “owe” the Canadian news media for having come to dominate the digital advertising market. If one was to follow the government’s logic here consistently, we can envision countless instances where new start-ups that outcompete legacy players and industries could be forced to compensate those who they’ve overtaken. As we write tongue-in-cheek today at The Hub, it would be the equivalent of forcing Ford and Studebaker more than a century ago to compensate the horse and buggy industry simply because they gave consumers something better and more valuable. If we had done this, we might all be feeding horses this morning instead of relaxing from the long drive back from the cottage on the Labour Day weekend. The “steel-manned” case on the part of the government is that the Act seeks to establish a “market mechanism” rather than solely rely on government subsidies to support the news media sector. The problem with such an argument, however, is that it conflates market-based transactions and ones mandated, overseen, and approved by the state. It’s not a “voluntary commercial agreement” if it originates and ends with the government. The Act uses the government’s legislative and regulatory powers to essentially turn Google and Meta into instruments of public policy. Any financial agreements that they reach with publishers under the Act are hardly market arrangements since they have to conform to the government’s prescriptions and ultimately secure approval from the CRTC. Such payments should therefore be viewed as an indirect government subsidy. The only major difference with a direct subsidy is that the former depends on the legislative pen rather than the public purse... Google and Meta may in theory be writing the cheques, but Ottawa is, for all intents and purposes, deciding where they’re going... We get the sense that what’s really happening here is that the government would prefer that the platforms own the responsibility to decide which media organizations to support but still reserve the right to intervene if it’s not satisfied that certain voices, audiences, or whatever are underrepresented. The exemption criteria grant considerable discretion to the CRTC, including the ability to revoke exemptions if something changes. It reinforces the point about the Act’s inherent confusion about the role of markets and the role of government."
