Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez has scheduled a press conference for later today to answer questions on the legislative mess that is Bill C-18. With Meta and Google announcing that they will block news sharing and links on their platforms before the law takes effect, the Canadian media sector stands to lose millions of dollars with lost links, the cancellation of dozens of existing deals, and a bill that might not generate any new revenues. Rodriguez has been flailing for a response in recent days with mounting doubts about the government’s strategy and its seeming failure to anticipate this reaction. He will be joined by MPs from the NDP and Bloc, who were supportive of the legislation during the committee process and joined forces to cut off debate and defeat potential amendments that would have address the concerns regarding mandated payments for linking. There are no shortage of questions that require answering and I’ve identified my ten on Bill C-18 below.
1. Meta and Google both expressed concern with the Bill C-18 approach of mandated payments for links from day one, but floated their willingness to support the media sector with different policy approaches such as contributions to a journalism fund. Why did you insist on the Bill C-18 approach when there were obvious risks that the companies would simply stop news sharing or block links? Why were the other models that would have directly supported journalism rejected?
2. You have described the decision faced by Google and Meta with regard to continuing to link to Canadian news as a “business choice.” If it is just a business choice, why do you also call it a threat or bullying tactic? What Plan B did you develop if they made the business choice to stop news linking in Canada once it became uneconomic.
3. What analysis have you or your department done on the potential losses from Bill C-18 if Google and Meta exit the news market in Canada? What valuation for the lost links? What is the estimated value of the deals that will be cancelled? Will the bill generate any new revenues in such a circumstance?
4. You have noted that the “world is watching” what happens with Bill C-18, suggesting that the Internet companies would likely respond as they did in Australia. Are you concerned that the focus on Canada might make it less likely the companies will reverse course given the reputational cost of doing so will be felt in many more countries and raise the prospect of billions in potential liability?
5. During the Senate hearings, smaller Canadian media outlets such as Village Media warned that they would be forced to shut down due to Bill C-18 if Meta and Google exit the news market. Other such as Le Devoir cited data indicating that 70% of their website traffic comes from search and social media. How did you account for these risks? What do you say to Canadian media outlets who may be forced to shut down due to your legislation?
6. Your recent comments regarding information on wildfires and the impact of Google and Facebook removing news links, led Twitter to add a context note given concerns that your statement was misleading. Are you concerned that you may fuelling misinformation on the bill? Further, is it your view that information such as wildfire data can only be accessed through these two companies?
7. You’ve regularly made the case that news has value and therefore even links to it should be compensated. But if that is the case, why are links from Google and Facebook compensable, but the same links from Twitter, Apple or Microsoft are not under Bill C-18. Is the news less valuable when the links come from those other sites? Further, lots of content has value: health information, educational information, and financial information all have value as well. If Canada begins to demand compensation for news links, why not other links?
8. According to Senator Peter Harder, the government expect Google and Meta to pay for as much as 30-35% of the news expenditures of Canadian news outlets as a result of Bill C-18. When the 25% labour journalism tax credit is added to the mix, that is as much as 60% of the costs of Canadian news covered by either the government or two foreign companies. Do you believe that is a healthy, sustainable approach?
9. You have said that you are open to talking to the companies, but the House committee studying the bill initially even tried to block Facebook from appearing on the bill and both the House and Senate repeatedly cut short debate on Bill C-18. Having foreclosed conversations on the bill prior to royal assent, what options do you have given that the bill is now law? What changes to regulations could be made to address the concerns raised by Meta and Google?
10. The emergence of generative AI services such as ChatGPT have attracted enormous attention with the expectation it will play an important role in the news sector. It does not appear that Bill C-18 contemplates AI as OpenAI and other AI services are excluded. Are you concerned that the bill is already outdated?
One simple question for Micheal Geist, Canada Research Chair, tenured professor:
Whatever happened to sober public policy discussions by academics writing for the general public. Why do you constantly, excessively, at every opportunity, use inflammatory and derisive language such as a cabinet minister “flailing about” to resolve a dispute. How do you know he’s flailing? He’s dealing with a situation. That’s what cabinetministers do, they deal with complex, often contentious, situations. Or “the legislative mess that is bill C-18”. Who says it’s a legislative mess? The response of Facebook and Google was not entirely unexpected and is surely not their last word. If it is they are walking away from a lucrative hustle selling other people’s content. In short, why, as a public servant with prestigious job titles (the Canada Research Chair for starters), must you taint everything with invective? What about the average member of the public landing on this site looking for clear information and analysis from a scholar in the field? It’s shameful, it truly is.
We’ve heard quite enough of academics supposedly writing for the general public.
As a member of the average public that you academics like to refer to as “lower educated”. I quit watching the liberal propaganda network a long time ago.
You academics are so frikken arrogant that you think nothing of putting yourselves up on a supposedly higher level. Book smart but life stupid. You don’t even realize that you are insulting and have no people skills.
ah, the liberal (Liberal?) propaganda network. That must be the CBC, Marxist den of subversion. Glad to see my school taxes are being put to such good use.
You must live Ottawa
Michael Geist commentary is the most reasonable and detailed I’ve read on this topic so far. You need to get over yourself, Fedup. Michael Geist has been covering this topic for years, and it’s crazy that C-18 became law despite all good senses.
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
“What about the average member of the public landing on this site looking for clear information and analysis from a scholar in the field? It’s shameful, it truly is.”
Let’s see. The mainstream news media in Canada (the large ones at least) are all actively supporting the law, and did so even when it was still a bill. I am shocked I tell you, shocked. The job of the news media in a democracy is to present the information, all sides of the argument, in order to allow the public to form an informed opinion. In this case, the only time that there were dissenting opinions presented were in a few opinion pieces, and the ones I saw were mostly written by Prof Geist. The news media has failed to do their job in this situation, but then again I can’t say as I am surprised; they have a vested interest in a certain outcome. What is happening here is that Prof Geist continues to present opinions that the news media and government would rather that the public does not hear.
There is two reasons why the major news media in Canada would have a vested interest in promoting the bill. There is the direct income aspect of it from Google and Meta. The other is that, because of the deals that Google and Meta had with the smaller media outlets that are being cancelled, the big news media companies will have the option of either benefiting from the reduced competition or buying the smaller property at fire sale prices.
Now, why would Google and Meta say no? It you look at the text of the law, look at the following except from the text:
“Dismissal of offers
39 (1) An arbitration panel must dismiss any offer that, in its opinion,
(a) allows a party to exercise undue influence over the amount of compensation to be paid or received;
(b) is not in the public interest because the offer would be highly likely to result in serious detriment to the provision of news content to persons in Canada; or
(c) is inconsistent with the purposes of enhancing fairness in the Canadian digital news marketplace and contributing to its sustainability.”
In particular, item (c) is problematic; “fairness” is inherently subjective. Given the way that the bill/law has been discussed by the government and the news media, the term “fairness” would appear to be defined in the same manner as the news media describes it. The above section is related to the final arbitration section of the law; all that the news media would need to do is to refuse any offer from the “digital news intermediary” until it reaches that stage and they will likely get whatever they want.
So your point is that the media are biased because they have a conflict of interest, so it’s Ok for Geist to be biased too. Interesting approach to academic ethics.
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——➤ https://aprichs.blogspot.com
Professor Geist *IS* a member of the public and he is entitled to comment on matters of public affairs. If you don’t like it, don’t come here and read his work, simple as that.
Why didn’t I think of that!? What brilliant logic, sharp as a (butter) knife.
Except he bills himself as an expert and is paid a public salary in that capacity. And runs this blog to impart his expertise to the public.
Details, details.
6. Your recent comments regarding information on wildfires and the impact of Google and Facebook removing news links, led Twitter to add a context note given concerns that your statement was misleading. Are you concerned that you may fuelling misinformation on the bill? Further, is it your view that information such as wildfire data can only be accessed through these two companies?
This appears wilfully disingenuous. Do they have to be the *only* sources of information for their to be a public safety problem? Did Rodriguez *say* they were the only sources? It seems obvious that R. was using the recent wildfire crisis as an example of the vital role of the news media in our society and the danger of having one or two of the largest “suppliers” [sic] of crucial simply stop the service over a profit-sharing dispute. And its rather rich for Geist to accuse someone of fuelling misinformation about this bill.
Dear Professor Geist,
Your questions are cogent and timely, although I despair you will get any sort of meaningful or competent response. Thank you for your expert and valuable efforts to expose the problems that have been created with these bills.
But, but, professor Geist, you told us the Canadian media were all up in arms against Rodriguez.
Quebecor Inc. is withdrawing advertising from Meta’s Facebook and Instagram platforms after the tech giant’s decision to remove Canadian news from its sites.
Meta made the move in response to the federal Online News Act which requires Google and Meta to pay news publishers for content that appears on their sites if it helps them generate money.
Both Meta and Google have said they would remove Canadian news from their platforms to avoid having to compensate the news outlets.
Quebecor says it is making its move after Meta’s “categorical refusal” to enter into negotiations.
The Quebec-based company says any move by Meta to circumvent Canadian law, block news for its users or discriminate against Canadian media content on its platforms, through its algorithms or otherwise, cannot be tolerated.
Quebecor owns telecommunications company Videotron as well as TVA Group which includes the TVA television network, specialty channels and magazines. It also owns the Journal de Montreal and Journal de Quebec newspapers.
“Meta made the move in response to the federal Online News Act which requires Google and Meta to pay news publishers for content that appears on their sites if it helps them generate money.” Wrong. Let me correct that for you:
“Meta made the move in response to the federal Online News Act which requires Google and Meta to pay news publishers for content that appears on their sites”.
It just has to appear on their site, even if it is put there by the news media themselves. And with no cap on the liability, the news media can put up a link to every story that they publish and they get paid for them all, even if no one ever looks at the story, either referenced from Google/Meta or directly via the news medias own website.
Why would Meta enter into negotiations? You’ve admitted yourself that non-Canadian news media is looking for not only a piece of the Canadian pie but also to implement similar legislation in other countries. Meta is taking the long view.
Because that’s the heart of the matter, isn’t it. Facebook and Google can dislike the fact, but a sovereign nation passed a law regulating their activities in the country to address an issue of vital national importance, the health of its news media. The companies are using blackmail to try to subvert or avoid or repeal the law by brute force. There’s the lesson to be learned here, which Geist is entirely silent about! There’s the precedent. When Canada passes a bill requiring nutritional labelling of foodstuff in conformance with Canadan law 9there already is such a law, and peanut butter manufacturers and the like the world over have to comply), and the response of, say, Kraft, or Coca Cola (two companies I wish didn’t exist, but others want to consume their products, and it’s a free country), is to pull their products from the Canadian market on the basis of the Facebook-Google precedent, well, what remains of your sovereignty then? Facebook just ate it. Will you ever hear Geist say any of this? Of course not. He’s an Internet libertarian. National borders, soverign nations, do not exist.
For that matter, testing of pharmaceuticals by Health Canada. Big Pharma can just say: The U.S. FDA approved it, we’re not submitting it to you for approval too, you can take it or leave it. So we have no regulation, testing or approval of pharmaceuticals left. All you have to do is bully your way through a law passed by a sovereign nation and show that you’re more powerful than it is.
Law bites have been introduced for the fixing of the joy for the candidates. The contact of the ai video editor for al offers. The realms done for the terms. Path is met for the approval of the joy for the reforms for humans.
Why pay your kidnapper rent for your time in captivity?
Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez says the federal government will suspend all its advertising on Facebook and Instagram, after what he called the social media giant Meta’s “unreasonable” and “irresponsible” decision to pull Canadian news from its platforms in response to the Online News Act.
The federal government’s Online News Act, C-18, passed Parliament nearly two weeks ago, and it forces digital giants like Google and Meta to pay media outlets for content that is shared, previewed or otherwise repurposed on their platforms.
Let’s ignore the rest of the online commenters of all stripes for a moment, and look at Minister Rodriguez’ own statements.
He appeared in committee on October 21st, 2022. (noted here https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-open-to-amendments-online-news-bill-1.6625805)
He was asked by Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu whether Canada is doing anything to prevent an outcome where Facebook content is banned.
His response was: “It’s a business decision that has to be taken by the platform.”
Now this has happened. The platform has made a business decision, something he appears to have understood they could do. You state that platforms need to pay for content that is shared, previewed or otherwise repurposed, and that is correct. But the legislation does not appear to *require* that they share, preview, or repurpose the content.
Why did a ‘business decision’ become ‘irresponsible’?
uh, when was “Facebook content banned”?
The intent was ‘if Facebook Canadian news content is banned on Facebook by Facebook’.
The full question is:
“Could you tell me something about what happened in Australia? I understood that when this legislation was rolled out there, Facebook shut down all of the content for Australia, so I think it’s important for us to make sure that doesn’t happen here. If the same thing occurs in Canada, it would be bad, because 22 million Canadians are on Meta, on Facebook.
Can you describe what happened there and what measures we’re putting in place to make sure that doesn’t happen here?”
The answer was that – the banning decision – would be a platform business decision. At that time, there was not a word about it being irresponsible or unreasonable.
so what?
Why call your adversary names about something they might do but haven’t and jeopardise a possible harmonious outcome? Is this all you have to whine about?
I’m glad you understand – the Minister has nothing to whine about, so why is he calling them names? He has legislation that he stated requires a business decision so that they stay compliant. They made a decision, they are staying compliant. Where is the problem?
If the goal was to *require* the carrying of news content, then that is what legislation should have stated.
Understand? I don’t understand a word you say, truly. It’s some other language you speak.
I guess it’s time to choose one’s camp. Democracy, the rule of law, fair play or . . . the Ottawa “truckers”. Given a choice between Pablo and Polly, well . . .
The Conservatives voted against C-18 and party leader Pierre Poilievre vowed in a tweet to “repeal [Prime Minister Justin] Trudeau’s censorship laws.”
Conservative Heritage critic Rachael Thomas issued a statement Wednesday calling C-18 a censorship law that limits what Canadians can see online.
“Common sense Conservatives submitted changes to fix flaws in Bill C-18 but the NDP-Liberal coalition blocked them. A Poilievre government will replace Bill C-18 and bring home freedom and choice for Canadians,” she said.
So why have you picked the truckers’ side?
Quebec Premier François Legault says the province is suspending advertising on Facebook until Meta resumes talks about the implementation of the federal Online News Act.
For me, the difficulty of completing the task is more often in the formatting and implementation of methodical instructions. It is very difficult to take into account all the subtleties and requirements. Therefore, it is easier to use the statement of purpose editor. Specialists have experience and make maximum efforts to complete everything in a timely and high-quality manner.
There may be a method to Rodriguez’s bravado.
His line in the sand on C-18 is gathering support south of the border. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) has sponsored a similar bill in the Senate, and recently told the Globe and Mail newspaper that Ottawa shouldn’t blink in its showdown.
“Of course monopolies will fight us every step of the way,” she said. “But we won’t back down — we must stand up for small businesses and competition while ensuring people have access to their local news.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also tweeted her support for C-18.
California’s legislature is considering similar legislation. Meta threatened to block news content in that state, too. Los Angeles Times columnist Brian Merchant urged Canada and California to hold the line: “This is a bluff, and not a particularly convincing one. For the sake of the beleaguered news industries in both places (yes, including this media outlet), the Canadian and Californian governments must absolutely call it.”
“This is a bluff” from someone with a vested interest in a specific outcome (hardly an objective opinion). Funny, that is what the Canadian government said too right up until the point where Google and meta told them to get stuffed. Now they are in damage control mode, as is organization “Digital Context next”.
What is objective is that his newspaper, and practically every journalism outfit in the world, is in dire straits, and Facebook is rolling in dough. You consistently pick up on the trivial and leave the huge issues aside.
The this is a bluff claims remind me of the Black Knight from Monty Pyton saying it’s only a flesh wound. Meta and Google are serious. They are not going to write blank cheques to news organizations.
Because they’re getting blank cheques from news organisations, At least the latter earn the money.
A lie is still a lie no matter how many times you repeat it. News organizations make money off of sports, businesses, charities, disasters, crimes, movies, etc and they don’t pay a dime for the information they report, so why should Google pay for doing essentially the same thing?
It’s interesting that Dr Geist has lots and lots of questions for the government, but none for Google and Facebook. In his view, the blame for the conflict lies entirely on one side. Even more tellingly, as I suggested above, the “democratic principles” questions at issue here don’t bother him a whit. When Facebook declared it would close up shop in Canada before submitting to a sovereign law, he breathlessly and approvingly reported the fact. It rings very much of the politics we see south of the border. Trump is indicted for holding sensitive classified documents? Kevin McCarthy et al. rush to his defence. “The documents were in a bathroom, and a bathroom door has a lock”. This is the party of law and order and the defence/intelligence establishment. So why wouldn’t a Canada Research Chair respond with glee to a huge foreign corporation refusing to obey a Canada law in the public interest? This is not only a post-truth era, it’s a post-shame era.
Pingback: Links 05/07/2023: pgAdmin 4 v7.4 and Kiwi TCMS 12.5 | Techrights
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
What are the implications of Meta and Google blocking news sharing and links on their platforms prior to the law’s implementation?
Law bites and all joys have been ensured for the terms for all people. The tings of the game grid 2
are firm for the terms. The style is done for the top of the goals for the chapter for the identified items for humans.
Pingback: Ne laissez pas les faits gâcher une bonne histoire – Vaste programme
Thank you google and meta for exposing how inept and absurdly idiotic our federal government is