Mark Zuckerberg F8 2018 Keynote by Anthony Quintano (CC BY 2.0)

Mark Zuckerberg F8 2018 Keynote by Anthony Quintano (CC BY 2.0)


Meta to Test Blocking News Sharing on Facebook and Instagram in Canada in Response to Bill C-18’s Mandated Payments for Links

Meta has announced that will test blocking news sharing in Canada on its platforms Facebook and Instagram in response to Bill C-18’s system of mandated payments for links. Even as some have suggested the position is bluff, the company has not wavered for months as this emerged as the most likely end game. Back in October, it said it was considering blocking news and in March it confirmed it. The government now says it won’t give in to “threats” but the reality is that Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez more accurately described it last year as a “business decision” when he appeared before the Heritage committee. Given that Facebook says news is responsible for only three percent of content on user feeds and that it is highly substitutable (ie. users spend the same amount of time on the platform whether scrolling through news or other content), the business choice seems like an obvious one.

The Meta test plan will run for about a month, affect as much as five percent of the user base, and target randomly selected news organizations. After Google was heavily criticized for running similar tests without initial disclosure, Meta is proactively disclosing its plans. The angry response from the government is unsurprising, but the testing is consistent with what the company has told Parliamentarians, namely that it will not block government or emergency sites that were scoped into news blocking in Australia several years ago. In order to live up to those assurances, the company presumably wants to test its blocking system.

While some argue that Canadians should welcome Facebook exiting the news sharing business, recent Senate hearings have left little doubt that there will be a significant negative impact on Canadian news organizations. The Globe and Mail told the Senate this week it could result in millions in lost revenues, while others advised that somewhere between 17-30% of their traffic comes from social media such as Facebook. That alone should highlight the value that the free links provide, yet the government – egged on by the media lobby – want hundreds of millions of dollars for those links with the prospect of 35% of their news expenditures covered by Facebook and Google. Further, Facebook has entered into deals with many Canadian news organizations and those agreements would be placed at risk by Bill C-18 and a decision to stop news sharing.

Given ongoing concerns with privacy and other issues, there are unsurprisingly few fans of Facebook right now. But there should be even fewer supporters of legislation premised on mandated payments for links with the majority of money going to broadcasters such as Bell, Rogers, and the CBC. Indeed, if Facebook copied full text articles and ran ads against them, one could understand the claim for compensation. But when the vast majority of news links are posted by the publishers themselves and the free referral traffic represents an important source of publisher revenue, the legislation is better viewed as a shakedown rather than a system of fair compensation. When coupled with fears expressed by the Globe and Mail and others that it is a “threat to the independence of media”, Bill C-18 is desperate need of an overhaul. 

There were better alternatives for the government that would have opened the door to greater compensation without payment for links. The government and Rodriguez’s decision to bully ahead with Bill C-18 despite the prospect of blocked links and lost millions for Canadian publishers is a massive miscalculation. Using words that would apply equally to Stellantis, Rodriguez now says “they come here and they tell us, ‘If you don’t do this or that, then I’m pulling the plug,’ – that’s a threat and that is unacceptable.” In the case of Stellantis, the government appears prepared to provide billions in additional subsidies. But for Bill C-18, it inexplicably seems ready to jeopardize years of support for the news sector and undermine its standing as a supporter of the free flow of information online. 


  1. Does anyone ever sit down in this government and think about the obvious off-target consequences of their actions? It seems like they think that the intent of a bill is all that matters. Or perhaps they lack the theory of mind needed to predict how other people (like Meta) will react.

    They are really showcasing their ineptness.

    Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt (1946):
    “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”

  2. Rodriguez now says “they come here and they tell us, ‘If you don’t do this or that, then I’m pulling the plug,’ – that’s a threat and that is unacceptable.”

    Actually, it’s more like they’ve been here for years and then the government comes along and says ” you have two choices – pay for news links or block them”. Meta then chooses to block links and the government has a hissy fit because they really, really wanted Meta to pay for links.

  3. So wait, who is the bully here? Pablo thinks it’ Meta (and Google) but in reality it’s he and his government that are trying to bully these (for-profit) businesses into unprofitable business models.

    The very idea that the government thinks it can go to a (for-profit, foreign, even) business and bully them through smear campaigns, threats or otherwise into participating in unprofitable business models (which are actually not business models at all but in fact are subsidy models) is not only laughable but reprehensible.

    This whole thing is making Pablo look like a complete idiot. Well, not making him look like it, just showing him for the big idiot that he is for coming up with this hair-brained scheme.

  4. There are considerable risks to the media, but those risks were entirely brought up by the media themselves. They lobbied for this bill, demonized anyone criticizing the approach, called the platforms liars, and gaslit the public for the better part of 2 years with their disinformation campaigns that both falsely accused the platforms of “stealing” content by linking to them and falsely accused the platforms of “censorship” when the platforms decided news links wasn’t worthwhile. Because of that, I have little sympathy for the large media outlets that brought this whole situation onto themselves.

    I will, however, happily offer advice to the smaller outlets that had nothing to do with this, though. Smaller outlets needs to stick together as things continue to hit the fan because of this ill-conceived shakedown.

  5. Claudia Shoebridge says:

    Middle of the scene and argument is filed for the vital paths for the citizens. The reign of the tech support austin tx is ensured for the field. Work is cut and short for the top of the identified items for the challenges.

  6. Pingback: Links 03/06/2023: IBM Betraying LibreOffice Some More (After Laying off LibreOffice Developers) | Techrights

  7. I figure that the news media wanted to get into the business of the person owning the advertising space paying for the privilege of providing that advertising to the company. In this way I am thinking of the clothing industry and the logos that feature on the shirts.

    I also liken the whole thing to buying a car. After buying a car most dealers will pay the customer a referral fee if the contact purchases a car. Imagine if the dealer suddenly decided that you must pay them a fee instead simply for providing the referral, even if the person doesn’t go to the dealership. And since the dealer often puts either a license plate cover or a sticker with the dealer info on the car, this would be a direct equivalent to a link on a social media site and therefore this counts as a referral. In this case Meta’s actions is no different than removing that plate cover and/or sticker.

  8. Pingback: Law and Media Round Up – 5 June 2023 – Inforrm's Blog

  9. Lew Sobczak says:

    This move by Meta reflects the ongoing discussions and debates surrounding the relationship between social media platforms and news organizations regarding compensation for news content.

  10. Welcome to, the leading source for high-quality fonts for creative professionals. Our platform offers a range of different styles from classic to modern and trendy, perfect for any project you have in mind. Whether you are looking for a font for your Instagram account or want to create a logo design, we have a wide range of fonts for you.

  11. Investing in Prestige Park Grove not only provides you with a luxurious residence but also offers the potential for substantial returns on investment in the future.

  12. We won’t stand for Facebook’s bullying of Canadians and blocking their access to news……..that’s MY job!!