The worst case scenario for Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez, the Canadian news sector, and the Canadian public has come to pass: Google has announced that it will block news links in Canada in response to the mandated payment for links approach established in Bill C-18. The decision, which the company says will be implemented before the law takes effect, will cover search, Google News, and Google Discover. The decision – which government seemingly tried to avoid with last minute discussions with Google executives after it became apparent that the risks of exit were real – will have lasting and enormously damaging consequences for Canadians and represents a remarkable own-goal by Rodriguez who has managed to take millions away from the news sector and left everyone in a far worse position than if he had done nothing at all.
While Meta’s decision to exit the news market was entirely predictable, the Google response was always more uncertain. The company made it clear it was deeply concerned by a mandated payments for links approach with uncapped liability, viewing it as a risky framework for any business and establishing a dangerous precedent globally for the free flow of information. Yet it also valued news in a way that Meta does not. Meta pointed to data demonstrating that news contributed little to user news feeds and that was highly substitutable. By contrast, Google search results are its bread and butter and removing Canadian news results makes its flagship product undeniably worse. Google has stopped its Google News service in some countries in response to legislative developments, but removing search results brings more significant consequences to users of the service.
That surely presented an unwelcome choice either way: agree to flawed legislation that creates a dangerous precedent on paying for links or knowingly decrease the value of its own service. By choosing to block links, the damage will be felt across Canada. For the news sector, this could result in news outlets shutting down altogether as the combined effect of blocked news links and news sharing on the Google and Meta will cut some sites traffic in half and lead to huge revenue losses. Services with existing deals with likely see that revenue disappear as well. For Canadians, Google search will be less reliable with Canadian news links removed and the Google News service shut down. This is likely to increase reliance on foreign news services and lower-quality services at the precise time that concerns over misinformation continue to grow.
But it is the government and Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez that must face the blame for having badly blundered this file. There were better options readily available that would have opened the door to increased contributions from Internet platforms toward journalism without the negative consequences associated with mandated payments for links, interference with press independence, and the direct harms to smaller and independent media outlets. Yet it bet that this was all just a bluff and that it could threaten its way into mandated payments. It was a bad bet that seemed to ignore both economic reality and the very real risks it was creating. The government regularly pointed to the Australian experience as evidence that it would emerge with a win for the sector. Instead, it is likely to become the global example of disastrous government policy that abandoned principles of an open Internet, failed to take the risks of its policy seriously, and paid a severe price.
What a disaster. This renders Google search pretty much useless for Canadians looking for information about anything that has happened in Canada. And disastrous for funding of newsrooms as well.
This will end up in textbooks as a case of terrible government policy. Pablo Rodriguez’s legacy will be as a textbook case of arrogance and incompetence.
I’ve never used Canadian news sites for Canadian news… I’ve always used US or UK sites. Canadian news won’t print anything not related to three things: 1)Taxes, 2) Economy and 3) ideology of the day (gender politics this year).
I’ve learned far more about what’s REALLY happening in Canada from CNN or BBC.
No one learns what’s really happening from CNN.
Exactly! CNN & BBC are as propagandistic as it gets. They are directed by “the empire” (MIC,big pharma,etc) and support the establishment 100%.
Google paid $95 a hour on the internet..my close relative has been without labor for nine months and the earlier month her compensation check was $51005 by working at home for 10 hours a day….. Everybody must try this job now by just use this
HERE——➤ http://www.aprichs.blogspot.com
Is the government hoping that they will blink first, like Meta did in Australia?
Google paid $95 a hour on the internet..my close relative has been without labor for nine months and the earlier month her compensation check was $51005 by working at home for 10 hours a day….. Everybody must try this job now by just use this
HERE——➤ Www.RichCash1.Com
Cue Microsoft President Brad Smith, one of the true slime balls of the industry, coming in like he did in Australia talking about how Microsoft would save Australia and do the moral thing.
Microsoft has become a better company in recent years, but something about competing with Google brings out the worst in them.
The fact that AI has been turned into a corporate arms race – the worst thing for AI safety – is thanks to MS seeing it foremost as a way to destroy Google. It is their job to compete hard against Google, of course, but there are good, productive ways to compete and destructive ways to compete.
Pingback: Why an attempt to save journalism will make things worse. - FindBerg
Did the Australian version of this law mandate payment for links, or did it go another way to address the result they wanted?
I would like to know the answer to this question as well?
I tried to research this answer, with almost no truly distinctive answers.
The closest was a point – from the government – that the law in Australia would only affect Google if the government considered that there were too few deals. This hints that enough private deals were done that the forceful version of regulation does not actually affect Google.
This would at least match up with what I saw regarding Google’s Canadian request, regarding the status of the existing deals with Canadian journalism entities.
If this is the case, then this would put the Canadian law in a very different place than the Australian law; Australia law appears to say the government will intervene if you don’t do deals, while the Canadian law says the government will intervene even if you do have deals.
If anyone can make this more definitive – please!
Ah – found another reference, this long tweet.
https://twitter.com/nspector4/status/1674721453852487681
“Canada’s legislation was modelled on Australia’s, where both Meta and Google actually remain exempt from the News Bargaining Code, which has never kicked in because the companies reached revenue-sharing deals with publishers.”
This matches up with what I was roughly seeing elsewhere.
The Canadian model is based on a link tax, which is inherently open ended.
The Australian model is more like buying blanket copyright to a media company’s product. In the Australian model, small regional media organizations’ product has proved to actually more valuable than big conglomerated news.
This is of course unacceptable to Canada’s media megalopolies. Those sweet link-tax dollars are for Rogers & Bell shareholders, not the Star or Free Press reporters.
Breaking News: CTV has just announced its national news is now The National Vlog. The Globe and Mail said it is going to convert to a blog. Others sure to follow.
Not wanting to offend you but as you are a professor I came here looking for light but what is here is almost only heat. May be you have written the pros and cons clearly in other work, I will assume. Even your side of the argument is very unclear, and lost to me in the deep decrying doom and gloom. I don’t find this writing either academic or informative – very one sided positional though.
The comment above by Rob illustrates why the AU approach is different and why the C-18 is an issue.
Most people do not consider that MOST media companies are already behind a paywall. Are the links shared going to have double dip tax?
At the end of the day, this should be a commercial agreement between 2 parties and not a government mandated “tax”. The government should enact laws to ensure that the 2 commercial entities as well as the consumer are represented.
This is only beneficial to Bell and Rogers IMHO. This is not good for the consumer.
Let me put it another way, how often do you click a new link from Google News, a Google Search, Facebook, Twitter etc and you are not asked to sign in because it’s behind a paywall.
Even the small media outlets are doing this … This law is behind the times!
So if FB/Google are only blocking “Canadian news”, and this block is potentially devastating to Canadian news organizations, then why don’t Canadian newsrooms just reincorporate in the USA?
How about putting laws in place that ensure that there are the appropriate commercial arrangements?
What news site do you use that are not behind a paywall?
How about less government and more freedom?
Lots of free independent sources if you care to look, who put out really important exposes of how we’re getting screwed by inept leadership and corrupt systems.
try LastAmericanVagabond, Grayzone, & corbettreport for example
Foreign ownership rules + loss of government support money.
Here is Michael Geist laid bare: not just an internet libertarian, which is bad enough (why do peopl ethink that there should be no rules or laws on line?), but – and one follows from the other, true – a shill for Big Tech.
Unable to take the Canadian government and people hostage for ransom (hundreds of millions of dollars in profit on the backs of Canadian news organisations, which create the content the Tech Bros sell – they have decided to kill the hostage.
Saying “You see, everyone is worse off, I told you so” is like saying “so the Mafia wanted protection money for your corner store, so what, you refused and their broke your legs. Now you have broken legs and they didn’t get their protection money. Everyone is worse off. You should have played along”.
Michael Geist works for Big Tech. Oh, they may not pay him. He doesn’t need the direct paycheque. He has a $1/4 million teaching job where he brainswashes students with this crap and an empire of books and crap shilling for Big Tech.
What news site do you use that are not behind a paywall?
This whole thing is geared toward the Rogers and Bell media conglomerates. This is NOT going to benefit the smaller outlets.
You accuse Micheal of being a shill for Big Tech … who is protecting us from the Canadian media conglomerates? Did you see a benefit from Rogers buying Shaw?
You need to rethink things!
He is an expect on Internet issues and does not have to post anony mously like you. Agree with everything I have ever seen him publish.
That says it all. Yu have Libertarian tech bro written all over your forehead. You people live in an electronic fantasy land.
“You” have
By the way, virtually none of your kindred spirits here is using their real, full name. So that makes them what? A coward like me?
lol .. again, give it up buddy. I am probably older and wiser than you and you called me a “tech bro”.
Let’s see, there’s Greg Carr the millionaire American philanthropist, Greg Carr the American university professor, Greg Carr the optometrist in London Ontario, and Greg Carr the American film industry worker. That’s the first five pages of google. Which one are you? If it’s not self-evident, why brag about using your real name? Mine could be John Smith, not much use to you if I use it, or Vladimir Bogdanovich Ukuwuku the Third.
Spoken like a true MAGA yahoo.
You need to give it up “Fed Up”. Your nonsense about “tech bro’s” just shows how out of touch you are with technology.
Geist is a tech bro. He’s 55. I once saw him at a public dicussion in Ottawa, decades ago, when the Internet was a new thing, berating, and I mean berating, some Guatemalan refugees for not using the full power of this cool new thing to expose the villainy of the Guatemalan regime (which I had seen first hand a few years before), despite the clear risk this would pose for them. That’s a tech bro, or one variety anyway. These days they wouldn’t be able to find Guatemala on a map.
no apostrophe on “bros”, bro. It’s a plural, not a possessive or a contraction.
no apostrophe on “bros”, bro. It’s a plural, not a possessive or a contraction.
lol … typical of MAGA yahoo’s.
no apostrophe on yahoos, either,
Or he could just be “Greg Carr” and not some fictional character?
I haven’t see you say one substantive thing in this thread, unlike your pals Kevin and Neil, who at least address the issues, eventually, a smuch as they twist the facts (Kevin is particularly good at the latter).
I am out of here now … You have no idea what you are talking about.
I look forward to more nonsense lol.
I stopped when Mr. “You people live in an electronic fantasy land.” wrote, “Google still wants to put chips in your brain.”. Basically like talking to someone who thinks COVID vaccines contain 5G location trackers.
you guys are bears for punishment. Except, like MAGAs, nothing gets through to you.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/google-boss-predicts-google-implant-will-put-the-web-in-your-head-by-2020/
One article from 2010 citing the Chief Economist at Google who isn’t involved in tech and says nothing about actively working on the product (which was supposed to be out three years ago). Hey, did you know the Earth was actually destroyed on Apr 29, 2007? Pat Robertson said it was going to happen.
It was the first thing that came up, I didn’t look at it closely. Do your own search. Google is on the record as researching this. Musk too, He’s a Nazi in many other respects.
Hundreds of millions in profits? Please — the Canadian market accounts for $8.7 million of Meta’s $780 BILLION valuation (and that’s for advertising, their primary revenue source, not news, which is a fractional percentage of that amount).
It’s spare change for these tech companies. Canada is borderline meaningless to them, and the fact that this government thought they would do anything other than what they’re doing is embarrassing.
There are lots of civil remedies open to the Canadian government against this coprorate blackmail, by the way. I’m sure they are exploring them right now. To think that Google and Meta, of all things, are the heroes to today’s small-fry tech bros commenting on this site. You’re being taken for a ride by Geist and his ilk, prmising freedom and robbing you blind. You’re the product, remember.
What news site do you use that are not behind a paywall?
I’m no fan of Big Media. But the revenue their paywalls geneate go into their companies, which produce content. One can complain until the cows come home about how Big Media is organised and works, but that is a basic principle.
What is the basic principle of Big Tech? Take someone else’s content and profit from it without creating anything. Completely indefinsible in principle. Don’t confuse principle with practice. Sort out what principles you stand for, then fix the practice. Once you choose the wrong principle, you’re screwed for all time. Once you start to pay protection money, once you pay the blackmailer with incriminating photos of you, it will never stop. They’ve got you.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Big Tech … Google, Meta, Rogers, Bell … they are all the same.
I don’t want MY government dictating what I can or cannot consume!!!!
Spoken like a true MAGA yahoo.
Wow … MAGA yahoo … that says it all right there.
You have NO idea how anti MAGA Nazi I am.
Fed Up’s posts are mostly nonsense. I mean, “There are lots of civil remedies open to the Canadian government against this coprorate blackmail,” LOL. Notice they don’t mention a single one. I’d like to hear one civil remedy the government could take that wouldn’t violate the Charter.
Threatening to kill the hostage is always the first response of a terrorist. Of course then they no longer have a hostage to barter with. But yeah, follow Geist down the path of defending the terrorist, because look what happens when you don’t, they kill the hostage. Better to just hand over the money.
The government says “If you link to news content, you have to pay”.
Google and Meta reply “In this case linking to news content will not be economically prudent for us so we will stop doing it”.
They are exiting an unprofitable market segment. This is a simple business decision, nothing more, nothing less. Last I heard, it is allowed in a democratic society. Or are you arguing for Stalinist policies?
It’s amazing that the mini-tech bros’ arguments here are “wah, look at the money Rogers makes”. That, I’m afraid, is capitalism. I don’t like it. The alternative is corporate fascism.
Don’t like Rogers shareholders? Are you kidding me? How much money do Google and Facebook have? 1,000,000 times what all Camadian media have combined. How do they “earn” that money? By giving you free content they don’t create. Wake up.
Ok … you clearly have an issue with the “man”.
C-18 is NOT a good policy IMO and this is going to end up being egg on the government’s face.
I agree he has an issue with “the man”, and considers profit to be a four letter word. Neglecting that profit is what funds development of a lot of things. Like cell phones.
The hyperbole is pretty interesting too, since the Canadian daily newspaper industry had revenue of $1.4 billion in 2019, that would mean that Google and Meta had revenue of $1,400,000,000,000,000 ($1.4 quadrillion, about 15x the GDP of the planet) that year.
Just because you are anti the man, doesn’t make this right.
Who is holding who hostage? Right now, Rogers and Bell are the ones holding us hostage.
I am no shill for Big Tech and as a S/W developer I am aware of the issues, but I want to be able to do a search and be able to pick where I get my information and not have that decided for me by my government.
I agree with you, but your villains are misplaced. Once Rogers and Bell have got you, they’ve got you.
If you think Rogers and Bell are bigger villains than Facebook and Google you’re living in cuckoo land.
The free ride is over. The cash cow is going to stop giving free milk to foreign tech giants.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/29/google-canada-online-news-act-publishers-content-law
What an interesting analogy.
Here’s the reality of an actual milk cow. They must be milked regularly, and the farm has to cover any costs associated with that. If the free market does not deliver the price you want for your milk, you have some hard choices – keep paying to run the farm, and throw the milk out; shut down the farm entirely; lower the price to a point where the market will take up the milk, and see if you can make it work financially.
What Canada actually does in this situation is have a supply management quota market system. You, the farmer, have purchased the rights to produce and sell a certain volume of milk, a level which is set by “government”. (It is arm’s length, but can only operate because of government regulation.) In order to maintain prices, the supply management system might actually cut back your quota.
The equivalent system here would work for media, in some bizarre fashion. Journalism entities could purchase a set number of stories per day. The Journalism Marketing Board could monitor the price for news, and if it is too low, they raise the price of quotas, or just cut the quota levels. This reduction in supply in the journalism market would result in an increase in price – for the few journalism providers that remain.
(And to be clear – I was not writing this as sarcasm, but it is very difficult to read my own words and NOT see them as sarcasm. I really cannot imagine running a journalism economy this way. And – I expect most journalism entities would find the above idea to be a non-starter.)
In the online communities that I have discovered, the play snake provides users with helpful suggestions for how they might amuse themselves and discover new and exciting things.
Pingback: ما الذي يمكن أن تتعلمه كندا من محاولة أستراليا جعل التكنولوجيا الكبيرة تدفع مقابل الأخبار؟ – إيجي التقني
I don’t mind losing the conglomerated links at all – just go directly to a local site, support them instead of a foreign company, and get actual local news. I don’t think this law is causing us to lose anything.
Here’s a little realpolitik for y’all. The Liberal Party (which I have never voted for, and I’m old enough to have had the opportunity to vote for Trudeau Sr.), is a slick machine. I suspect they are sticking their necks out like this because their polling shows that most Canadian support them. This is not the kind of issue, like Obamacare for example, which ruined the next 7 years of Obama’s presidency (until Americans discoverd that they like health care), that a government would normally rist losing votes over. So the Liberals are leaving it up to the Cons (another party I have never voted for) to convince Canadians that making Big Tech richer than it is while helping destroy Canadian journalism is good for them and for the country. They’ve picked the perfect wedge issue.
Class discussion Dr Geist: Why do most Canadian support this? Is it because they see through the shill? Discuss.
Better class discussion: Why debate a rando who shows up with no sources to support their dubious assertions?
If you think Trudeau is doing all this despite the Big Tech Mafia’s threats knowing that the polls are againsthim, you don’t know anything about politics. But that makes sense, seeing how much you know about this issue.
I know enough not to make myself look like a fool by making these kinds of statements:
“How much money do Google and Facebook have? 1,000,000 times what all Camadian media have combined.”
“There are lots of civil remedies open to the Canadian government against this coprorate blackmail, by the way”
Grow up. That was obviously a rhetorical flourish. Address the issues.
As for the second part, of course there are civil remedies to a company turning off its service to a country.
>As for the second part, of course there are civil remedies to a company turning off its service to a country.
Still no concrete examples, eh? Hint: Google does not have provide *any* service in Canada beyond what it contractually obligated to do so. And it does not have to sign any contract it does not wish to.
Why don’t you direct your attention to the posts below rather than making these infantile remarks?
Infantile remarks like “Spoken like a true MAGA yahoo.”? I’d rather highlight your nonsensical assertions.
Bottom line: Google/Meta have their propaganda. The govt and those who stood to get $$$ have their propaganda which you posted below. Google/Meta are free to walk away (as is any private sector company) from providing a product/service if they don’t like the obligations placed upon by them by the government.
Hilarious. Google has its propaganda, the government has theirs. That’s the only conclusion that can be drawn from this. No one is right or wrong, or more right or more wrong than the other. Google doesn’t want to play by any rules other than its own, so they can decide not to. You’re admitting to having no real opinon, no grasp of the issues. You just side blindly with google because their rules are more convenient for you. Civics in action.
Again, given the nonsense you’ve delivered throughout your replies, I’d say I have a far more clear-eyed grasp of the issues than you.
Try responding to my two-part post below if that’s the case.
It’s pretty simple. Would I like Google et al. to pay into the fund? Sure, foreign corporate money funding activities that benefit Canadians sounds good. But I also realize that private sector corporations have a right to withdraw services/products from a market they no longer wish to participate in and I’m not going to make up (or lie about) the “lots of civil remedies” they could be hit with and I’m not going to call people who point out facts clowns, or MAGAS, or shillls like some first-year sociology student pumped up with righteous fury for “the worker”.
The government has bungled this, despite plenty of warnings, with assistance from people like you who assured them companies like Google would have no choice but to pay up. The far smarter approach would have been to go after Google’s ad-tech business like what the EU is doing.
I think it is because the beneficiaries of the pay per link are the ones that are providing the information to the majority of the population. And this means they have a vested interest in a specific outcome. This allows them to influence public opinion.
And it isn’t only the LPC that is sticking their necks out on this one. Because of the confidence and supply agreement, the NDP is sticking their necks out too. And why are they doing it? I can see a couple of reasons.
1) By all accounts I’ve seen they can’t afford to go to the polls right now. These accounts indicated that they had to mortgage the party headquarters to finance the last national campaign.
2) The NDP has a heavy organized labour input, to the point of having a VP for organized labour and allocating convention delegates to the CLC and other organized labour groups (source: NDP constitution). Unifor has a lot of members who are employees of big news media and they would therefore be very much in favour of the law.
Translation of 2: There are Canadian workers in favour of a law that protects Canadian jobs against rapacious foreign Big Tech. Horros! Shocking! Scandalous!
Wrong. That the union is in favour does not necessarily mean that the workers are also in favour, in particular with a union like Unifor which has spent north of a million dollars in a campaign against particular parties and candidates while representing news media types who are supposed to be impartial; this causes doubts about their impartiality.
Frankly, that a union would be in favour of a law which can reasonably be expected to cost jobs means that they aren’t looking out for the workers.
Sheer nonsense. All kinds of people depend on a Canadian news company for a weekly paycheque. Those companies are being bled dry by Google. More revenue into those companies means at least the chance of better pay and working conditions. More conspiracy theories, this time about Canadian trade unions. I don’t hear you saying anything against Google or Facebook though. They’re squeaky clean. What a load of manure.
“Reasonably be expected to cost jobs” meaning if Google reasonably pulls the plug because the Canadian government representing Canadian workers and businesses won’t be blackmailed. There’s nothing reasonable about it. Google and Facebook will also be losing tons of money when they pull the plug. We’ll see who folds first.
Here’s an antidote to the propaganda (1/2).
So much for this being all about Rogers shareholders or whatever the talking point is.
Digital Content Next represents more than 60 media companies, including Bloomberg, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. We strongly support Bill C-18, the Online News Act, which aims to level the playing field between the duopoly of Google and Facebook and Canadian news businesses.
Meta’s recent “test” to block news content from some of its users, as wildfires rage across Canada, is only the most recent example on how these companies use their dominance to try to intimidate sovereign governments and news publishers.
We have supported similar legislation, including in Australia, which enacted its version back in 2021. At a time when parliaments around the globe are investigating how Google and Facebook have captured nearly all of the growth in digital advertising, thereby draining the lifeblood of the local news press, we must learn and then build upon each other’s work, as you would be doing in passing Bill C-18.
Why do we support C-18?
First, it would help rebalance bargaining power. Publishers’ brands are proxies for trust and value. The inclusion of news content from premium publishers has played a large part in developing the daily search and social media habits of Canadians, allowing Google and Facebook to become dominant gatekeepers.
For reference, over the last decade, we’ve seen that these two companies sometimes capture 80 to 90 per cent of the incremental growth in digital advertising. That means for every $5 billion the market grows, $4 billion goes directly to Google and Facebook.
The lack of protection and negotiation rights for that content, coupled with nearly unlimited access to the data of the web for micro-targeted advertising, has led to a marketplace where publishers and their content have become interchangeable commodities. Bill C-18 would protect publishers’ intellectual property rights and provide balance in negotiations with online platforms so they can receive fair compensation and, thus, promote a free and plural press.
Second, it relies primarily on the market to determine how — and how much — publishers should be compensated for their content. This flexible approach allows a diverse set of publishers to seek terms specifically tailored to their business needs. Some start-up publishers may want to forgo revenue in favour of audience reach, while established publishers may want to ensure maximum return for their high‑value brands.
2/2
We believe government should not set rates; thus, the bill’s “final offer arbitration” provision is an elegant solution to accelerate negotiation toward a fair deal.
Third, it only applies to a situation in which there’s a significant power imbalance between the news publisher and the intermediary platform. Importantly, the news publisher retains the option as to whether it wants to participate. The dominant platform does not.
Fourth, in no way, shape or form does it change the structure of the web, or in any way demand payment for links. This is misinformation. We spent many a late hour rebutting this argument in Australia, as Google’s and Facebook’s advocates suggested the law would “break the internet.” Not surprisingly, the internet in Australia is working just fine.
Fifth, the bill permits publishers to bargain as a group or individually. We believe it’s important to provide flexibility for publishers to choose whether they want to negotiate collectively or individually. As I mentioned earlier, some publishers might want to retain the ability to negotiate individually for terms that are specific to their high-value brands. Small and medium-sized publishers, however, may find it more effective to pool their resources and negotiate as a group. This bill provides a flexible framework that will help bring new resources to a variety of news publishers.
In summary, C-18 is a reasonable and necessary reform. It would enhance market-driven negotiations to enable news publishers to receive fair compensation for the content they create and that dominant platforms attain, share and use to sell advertising. The ability for trusted and valued premium publishers to have an equal playing field is critical to the permanence of Canada’s news marketplace and for democracy. Canada: don’t be intimidated; pass Bill C-18 and show the rest of the world how it’s done.
Since you have not attributed to the opinion piece in the Toronto Star (and possibly other new media) that published this, I can only assume that your are its author, Chris Pedigo (from the info at the bottom of the piece, “Chris Pedigo is senior vice-president, government affairs, for Digital Content Next”). I looked at the DCN website and didn’t find a single Canadian news media site listed as being a member of DCN. In fact, most are American with a couple of UK sites and a company headquartered in Mexico and the US.
Why would foreign media be interested in C-18, since they don’t benefit from it? A couple of things come to mind.
1) They can use the Canadian legislation as a means to lobby their own governments to provide similar legislation, in the same way the major news media in Canada used the Australian legislation to lobby. (Monkey see, Monkey do)
2) While less likely, if I were into conspiracy theories I might think that it would allow these companies to try to get a piece of the pie by claiming a violation of the USMCA and making Google, Meta, et al, pay for links provided to Canadian users for links to foreign news media (special treatment of national corporate entities).
It’s pretty simple, really. As the (UK) Guardian story I posted earlier mentioned, next up in the legal challenge is California. The folks there would love a win in Canada for the precedent and the public information campaign.
In any event it’s not true that these companies will not benefit from the Canadian legislation. Under the legislation, a Canadian reading the Washington Post will be directing advertising revenue to the WP, not (the lion’s share as now) to Google.
So much for all the conspiracy theories.
Pingback: Links 30/06/2023: Wikipedia Moves to CC 4.0, Twitter Usage Sags | Techrights
Another clear of example of government not understanding tech at all.
The most scandalous thing is that this clown Geist pulls down a quarter-million a year, plus benefits, sabbaticals, etc, teaching in a public university. So much for disinterested public policy analysis. He sounds like a paid PR shill for Google. Even if you agree with him you have to admit this is a complete perversion of the role of a university researcher and professor. Balance? Ha, balance, that’s so passé. Informing the public about the issues in an even-handed way? Ha ha. It’s outrageous. And the right wing – Geist is a full-fledged member of its extreme, libertarian flank, like his pals at the Electronic Frontier Foundation – complains about Lefties controlling university discourse and unduly influencing young minds. Geist’s nonsense is grotesque. For someone with three or four degrees and a prestigious academic appointment to claim that the lesson to be drawn from this is that it’s all Pablo R’s fault, he shold have paid the ransom and just left well enough alone, is sickening. Your yahoo bro fans can say that, Geist. Surely you can do better.
You are losing it and need to get a grip.
Your arguments are getting increasingly unhinged and lack logic.
You don’t want the government telling you what to read?? You don’t think Google and Facebook are telling you what to read? They own your soul. You’re their product. Your life is run by their algorithms and you don’t even know it. They are two of the most pernicious forces for social evil in the world, and you are helping line their pockets and are shilling for them.
If you think they tell you what to read and are two of the most pernicious forces for social evil in the world you should be ecstatic that they are closing up some of their offerings. Right? Right?
Bizarre logic. Are they closing up shop for good, no more Facebook, no more google? Hardly. Facebook still spreads Qanon and Russian propaganda, among much else. Google still wants to put chips in your brain. There are no limits to what these things – what to call them? they’re more than companies, for more than a web address. They’re totalities, hence totalitarian – will do. And, increasingly, can do. The ad revenue they make from you is bankrolling the whole process.
Surely you can do better than lame comments like that. On second thought, maybe not.
*far* more than a web address
Fools argue over whether you’d rather be dictated/manipulated by Big Gov or Big Tech. Get past the duality and realize you’re getting screwed by BOTH actors, often working in tandem.
How about people stop being lazy and actually search for your news from independent sources that are free?
How about stop looking to the government for solutions and realize they often create and make problems worse?
How about realizing that Big Tech companies are parasites that don’t deserve your data at all? Stop using G00gle search, gmail, FB, insta, etc
As I mentioned, the threat to pull the plug here is to “encourager les autres” elsewhere.
Speaking the day after Google warned it would remove links to Canadian news stories in this country in response to the federal Online News Act, the minister said he was surprised by the tech giant’s announcement, and speculated that it could be “a negotiation strategy.”
Mr. Rodriguez told The Globe that Google and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, are trying to send a message to other countries, including the United States and Britain, about what could happen if they bring in legislation like the Online News Act, also known as Bill C-18.
The legislation was designed to support the Canadian news industry, which has seen its advertising migrate to the Big Tech platforms. It would make Facebook and Google negotiate deals to compensate news outlets in Canada for posting or linking to their work.
Meta has also warned it plans to block the posting and sharing of Canadian news stories on both platforms in this country in response to the legislation, which will come into force in about six months.
“Google and Facebook are trying to send a message not only to Canada, but also to France, England, Germany, the United States,” Mr. Rodriguez said. “We’re going to keep standing our ground. After all, if the government can’t stand up for Canadians against tech giants, who will?”
The U.S. Congress and California are currently debating parallel legislation to make the tech giants compensate news organizations for using their work. In Washington, the legislation has support from both Democrats and Republicans.
Danielle Coffey, president and chief executive of America’s News-Media Alliance, said Google and Facebook’s actions in Canada were being viewed south of the border as an effort to send a warning to U.S. legislators.
“It is safe to assume that every time the platforms have threatened to pull down news, they are thinking ahead. It’s to fend off legislation in other areas,” she said.
“The U.S. Congress and California are currently debating parallel legislation to make the tech giants compensate news organizations for using their work. In Washington, the legislation has support from both Democrats and Republicans.”
If only they were actually using their work. The problem with your argument is that they aren’t using it. They are providing a referral to the news media sites who can then charge a subscription fee to see the item, and also charge advertisers for the privilege of advertising on their news media site. Normally a company pays someone a referral fee. For instance, the car dealership I bought my car from will pay me $50 if I refer someone to them and they buy a vehicle. What the news media wants if for Google and Meta to pay them a fee for each referral that they make, regardless of if the user actually follows the link. And with no cap. When I was in the military it was referred to as “unlimited liability” and referred to the possibility that you may be asked to die in the service of your country. This isn’t much better, since without a cap it could bankrupt Google and Meta, especially once other countries start to do the same thing. And when that happens the news media will be back in the same situation they are now.
Frankly, the news media in Canada has themselves to blame for the predicament they find themselves in; what they want to charge their advertisers for the ad space is higher than what the advertisers are willing to pay. Either lower the cost to the advertisers of provide them a better return for the money.
Granted, while it is unlikely to bankrupt the companies, it could easily get to the point where they are forced to shut off news links as the cost the company more money than what the data is worth, between the actual direct cost of the link and the administrative costs associated with processing the required payments. Don’t forget that these links are not likely to be sponsored links on Google, so the income that they derive from it is mostly from the data analytics that is performed on the link. If the price per link is based on the total profit that they make, in the case of Google that would mean that the C-11 price for the link would incorporate a portion of the profits from someone sponsoring a link to their business selling doo-hickeys.
Pingback: Why Canada's Attempt to Save Journalism May End Up Crushing It Instead - Media Downloader
Pingback: Google information adjustments in Canada: Classes to be taught - todaynewsworldwide
Pingback: Google news changes in Canada: Lessons to learn - Cookingrespi
Pingback: Google news changes in Canada: Lessons to learn – My Blog
Pingback: What can Canada learn from Australia's bid to make big tech pay for news? - News Peter India - Peter India News
Pingback: Google news changes in Canada: Lessons to learn – Jobs Rop
Pingback: Google news changes in Canada: Lessons to learn – peripherynews.com
Pingback: Google news changes in Canada: Lessons to learn – Apkwr
Pingback: Google news changes in Canada: lessons to learn
Pingback: What can Canada learn from Australia’s bid to make big tech pay for news? – Canada News
Google paid $95 a hour on the internet..my close relative has been without labor for nine months and the earlier month her compensation check was $51005 by working at home for 10 hours a day….. Everybody must try this job now by just use this
HERE——➤ Www.RichCash1.Com
U.S. senator [Amy Klobichar] urges Canada to stand firm against Meta, Google’s threats to block Canadian news over C-18
In the end I think even the U.S. governmnt wants a piece of the action of these compaies. A victory for Bill-C18 would help them pave the road to that.
Pingback: Google news changes in Canada: Lessons to learn – CTV News – Auto Robot Demo
For the first time Micheal I dissagree with you. You are entitled to your opinion even if it is wrong.
Even Ma Bell is trying to get out of Local News.
Google and facebook are not Canadian news providers. They have subscribers that are and are advertisers on their platforms. For companies of that magnitude paying a paltry bit of Canadian tax might endear them a little more to the Canadian public.
These suscribers would be much better off creating their own Maston servers and providing their services over Mastodon. I am sure it would also be much cheaper than paying facebook, google, twitter and their ilk to run ads for them.
Besides, nobody owns Mastodon or any part of the Fedi-Verse so they wold not be suseptable to the pressures of their ad partners.
That’s my nickel’s worth anyway.
Pingback: Law and Media Round Up – 3 July 2023 – Inforrm's Blog
Pingback: Google news changes in Canada: Lessons to learn – technology news
What were the last-minute discussions between the Canadian government and Google executives about?
Pingback: Google news changes in Canada: Lessons to learn | KMN
Pingback: Unveiling the Risks of C-18: Safeguarding Charter Rights Amid Concerns of Authoritarianism? – Just another WordPress site
Pingback: Unveiling Risks of C-18: Safeguarding Charter Rights Amidst Concerns – WordPress Site
Pingback: Why the Online News Act has been a total policy disaster - The Hub