Going straight to the horse's mouth, here's Bill C-18. I guess Google wants to hold on to their market dominance and doesn't want to compensate news outlets appropriately or support Canadian news? ...
Going straight to the horse's mouth, here's Bill C-18.
I guess Google wants to hold on to their market dominance and doesn't want to compensate news outlets appropriately or support Canadian news?
Clause 6 of the bill sets out the factors used to determine whether there is a “significant … imbalance” between the operator of the digital news intermediary and news businesses. These factors are the size of the operator or intermediary in question, whether the operator has a strategic advantage over the news business and whether the intermediary occupies a prominent market position.
...
Clause 11(1) of the bill provides that the CRTC may make an exemption order in relation to operators of digital news intermediaries if they have entered into agreements with news businesses. These agreements must satisfy certain criteria:
they provide for fair compensation to eligible news businesses;
they ensure that some of this compensation is used to support the production of local, regional and national news content;
they do not undermine freedom of expression and journalistic independence;
they contribute to the sustainability of the Canadian news marketplace;
they encourage innovative business models in that marketplace; and
they cover a range of news outlets reflecting the diversity of the Canadian news marketplace, including diversity with respect to language, racialized groups, Indigenous communities, local news and business models.
Google, or any company for that matter, can't support this law. It creates fees that are unpredictable and uncapped. An argument could be made that Google should create agreements with news...
Google, or any company for that matter, can't support this law. It creates fees that are unpredictable and uncapped. An argument could be made that Google should create agreements with news outlets, but that is not in the best interest of the news outlets. Why would they want this when they can collect any sum of money they desire without needing to enter into an agreement.
In my opinion, I feel this bill is very bad for Canadians and our access to professional quality information. You know who doesn't care about kick backs and compensation? News outlets who make up stories or spread false information. They are more in it for the spread and this will only help that.
It is a shame that the best our politicians can do is try and levy new fees to see if that can solve the problems. News fees, Netflix fees, toll road fees, etc etc. It's just about getting more pie.
I strongly agree with the need for good local and professional journalism but this isn't the solution. This is just taxing the problem.
When you say "uncapped fees" and "any sum of money they desire", where are you getting that from? As stated in the bill C-18 has distinct limits on the penalties that can be assessed, and the...
When you say "uncapped fees" and "any sum of money they desire", where are you getting that from? As stated in the bill C-18 has distinct limits on the penalties that can be assessed, and the process that must be undertaken before a penalty is charged. News outlets don't just get free cash.
It's quite clear based on the goal stated that their objective is to make search engines and social sites pay when sharing content. As the penalty is with the news indexor, how many journalistic...
It's quite clear based on the goal stated that their objective is to make search engines and social sites pay when sharing content. As the penalty is with the news indexor, how many journalistic agencies (as defined by the tax act) will end up getting spun up and now have a way to force Google to pay or else they will face big fines.
Actually, I don't think we will come to anu agreement if we discuss in this manner so I just want to understand why you like the bill so that I can consider your point of view on it.
I dislike the bill because I feel that it is boiled down to this: news outlets need money, they have lost money over the past years due to whatever circumstances, seems search engines have money and people go to them to find news. So why not tax them or force them into an arrangement to get it. To me it would be like saying, you watch the news on a Samsung TV, so shouldn't Samsung have to pay something for it? Or you read this on your phone, apple has money, why can't they pay for it?
I also feel it paves a clear path for non Canadian media to easily spread misinformation as they won't care about these fees.
Overall, I know we are both in agreement that local investigative journalism is an important part of Canada. I guess to me, I just feel that if they couldn't figure out how to make it profitable, it's not Google's job to bail them out.
Sorry it's long. I am not trying to come off as combative. I had a long day and am tired and I just don't get how this helps me as a Canadian Citizen.
Ok, you've brought up a number of points in this thread, so let me attempt to lay them out so I can cover them all. If I've misrepresented anything, it's not my intent; this is just my...
Ok, you've brought up a number of points in this thread, so let me attempt to lay them out so I can cover them all. If I've misrepresented anything, it's not my intent; this is just my understanding of it. Let me know.
The fees that a digital news intermediary like Google would pay are arbitrary, and uncapped and a news business can force the digital news intermediary to pay any amount of money the news business desires.
People will spin up new news businesses in order to bilk any digital news intermediary for big fines.
Google is like a TV, cellphone, or other hardware that has no control over the information presented.
This bill makes it easier for non-Canadian media to spread misinformation.
Are these correct? For the moment I'll write as if they are, but if that's not the case let me know.
1.a) The fees are capped. As per the bill:
Clause 61(1) provides for a maximum penalty of $25,000 for a first violation by an individual (clause 61(1)(a)) and $10 million for a first violation by an entity (clause 61(1)(b)).
1.b The fees are based on the scope of the violation. As per the bill:
Clause 61(2) sets out a list of criteria the CRTC must take into account when determining the amount of the penalty, including the nature and scope of the violation, the history of the alleged violator and their ability to pay.
There has to actually be a violation in order for a news business to get a penalty. Per the bill:
Clause 62 outlines a procedure for violations pursuant to clause 60(1). The CRTC may designate persons who are authorized to issue notices of violation (clause 63(a)). If these persons believe on reasonable grounds that an individual or entity has committed a violation, they are authorized to issue notices of violation to the individual or entity in question (clause 64(1)).
Clauses 64(2)(b) and 64(2)(c) specify that a notice of violation must set out the act or omission giving rise to the violation, a reference to the provision that is at issue, the penalty liable to be paid and the time and manner of payment. Clause 64(2)(d) gives the alleged violator the option of paying the penalty immediately or making representations with respect to the violation to the CRTC.
If they're a legit news business and they take Google to court, they can get a payout, but then they're a functioning news business, which seems to be in Canada's best interest?
Google (and Facebook) determine what news is shown on their platforms. They aren't hardware, where anything you say to be displayed will be displayed; they have editorial control over what's shown, and derive benefit from being the central repository of news, as opposed to people engaging in news discovery on the news business's website. This is a distinct (if difficult to quantify) harm to the news business.
Given that Google has pulled out, I don't see how mis/disinformation is any more likely? I can see an argument that if they'd decided to stay, shoddy or malicious news would have negotiated very low or zero profit rates to make it more likely for Google to feature their "news". However, from the bill:
2.4 Exemptions (Clauses 11 to 17)
Clause 11(1) of the bill provides that the CRTC may make an exemption order in relation to operators of digital news intermediaries if they have entered into agreements with news businesses. These agreements must satisfy certain criteria:
they provide for fair compensation to eligible news businesses;
they ensure that some of this compensation is used to support the production of local, regional and national news content;
they do not undermine freedom of expression and journalistic independence;
they contribute to the sustainability of the Canadian news marketplace;
they encourage innovative business models in that marketplace; and they cover a range of news outlets reflecting the diversity of the Canadian news marketplace, including diversity with respect to language, racialized groups, Indigenous communities, local news and business models.
That final one is the kicker. If Google only had deals with a few of the worst rags, that wouldn't be enough, as they wouldn't have a diverse Canadian news base to provide.
But all of that is just trying to refute the points you've brought up, rather than saying why I think the bill is good for Canada and Canadians. These are my points in its favor:
Google and Facebook collectively have immense power over the new media landscape. Many people use them to uncover the news they read, and they'll only dip out of the digital news intermediary's ecosystem to read individual articles, which hurts the news business in a number of ways:
1.a) As far as funding, they can sell fewer ads since someone is only going to hit a single page on the site. That means they have to pack in as many ads as possible to that experience in order to make any money on a pageview. This also degrades the reading experience, which ties into 1.b.
1.b) Outside of the largest outlets, they have trouble building a regular group of readers. Building a name as an independent news outlet is harder than ever, since your headline article on small town political corruption is jammed in a news feed between "this cat did a funny thing" and "here's the best crops to plant next to watermelons."
1.c) These two issues combined make it much harder for news businesses to fund. Ad revenue is choked by limited user interactions with the site, and subscriptions are limited by the digital news intermediary being the channel through which users find their news, strangling proper name recognition and news business loyalty. So, if Google is going to be where people go to get their Canadian news, Google can compensate Canadian news businesses for the work they put in to find that news and write it up, film it, etc.
The bill creates collective bargaining power for news media as a whole to negotiate with Google and Facebook, because those two are so large that no single outlet can bring them to the table. As shown by Australia and Canada's outcomes in this fight, sometimes even a nation isn't a big enough bargaining unit for Google to take seriously. But if a nation can't, a single town's newspaper has no chance at all. They probably can't even get someone from Google on the phone.
So, is it perfect? Certainly not. But does it provide a framework where Canadian news businesses can be compensated when Google extracts much of the financial benefit, and makes it possible for them to bargain collectively with one of the largest corporations on Earth? Yes. And I think that's valuable.
Ice read your reply a few times and you gave me a good understanding especially with your last point. What you pointed out to me is that the current news agencies have little/no bargaining power...
Ice read your reply a few times and you gave me a good understanding especially with your last point. What you pointed out to me is that the current news agencies have little/no bargaining power with the search engines. This bill gives them some bargaining power and assigns a higher value to their content for that bargaining. I can see how that would greatly help our news media.
Thank you for taking the time with your reply, I still don't agree with the bill but at least now I see some benefits to it!
I'm glad to have talked about it. It helped me expand my own opinion and understanding of the bill. I think on balance it's better than doing nothing, even if it's not everything we'd want to see...
I'm glad to have talked about it. It helped me expand my own opinion and understanding of the bill. I think on balance it's better than doing nothing, even if it's not everything we'd want to see to truly encourage an independent media. But don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, eh?
No worries. I do want to write up an appropriate response, but it's late here and I don't have the brain to do it justice. We're definitely both on the side of local journalism, and I take it not...
No worries. I do want to write up an appropriate response, but it's late here and I don't have the brain to do it justice. We're definitely both on the side of local journalism, and I take it not as combativeness, but passion for journalism and frustration with the solution you see as ineffective. I'll be back when I've put my thoughts together.
Going straight to the horse's mouth, here's Bill C-18.
I guess Google wants to hold on to their market dominance and doesn't want to compensate news outlets appropriately or support Canadian news?
...
Google, or any company for that matter, can't support this law. It creates fees that are unpredictable and uncapped. An argument could be made that Google should create agreements with news outlets, but that is not in the best interest of the news outlets. Why would they want this when they can collect any sum of money they desire without needing to enter into an agreement.
In my opinion, I feel this bill is very bad for Canadians and our access to professional quality information. You know who doesn't care about kick backs and compensation? News outlets who make up stories or spread false information. They are more in it for the spread and this will only help that.
It is a shame that the best our politicians can do is try and levy new fees to see if that can solve the problems. News fees, Netflix fees, toll road fees, etc etc. It's just about getting more pie.
I strongly agree with the need for good local and professional journalism but this isn't the solution. This is just taxing the problem.
When you say "uncapped fees" and "any sum of money they desire", where are you getting that from? As stated in the bill C-18 has distinct limits on the penalties that can be assessed, and the process that must be undertaken before a penalty is charged. News outlets don't just get free cash.
It's quite clear based on the goal stated that their objective is to make search engines and social sites pay when sharing content. As the penalty is with the news indexor, how many journalistic agencies (as defined by the tax act) will end up getting spun up and now have a way to force Google to pay or else they will face big fines.
Actually, I don't think we will come to anu agreement if we discuss in this manner so I just want to understand why you like the bill so that I can consider your point of view on it.
I dislike the bill because I feel that it is boiled down to this: news outlets need money, they have lost money over the past years due to whatever circumstances, seems search engines have money and people go to them to find news. So why not tax them or force them into an arrangement to get it. To me it would be like saying, you watch the news on a Samsung TV, so shouldn't Samsung have to pay something for it? Or you read this on your phone, apple has money, why can't they pay for it?
I also feel it paves a clear path for non Canadian media to easily spread misinformation as they won't care about these fees.
Overall, I know we are both in agreement that local investigative journalism is an important part of Canada. I guess to me, I just feel that if they couldn't figure out how to make it profitable, it's not Google's job to bail them out.
Sorry it's long. I am not trying to come off as combative. I had a long day and am tired and I just don't get how this helps me as a Canadian Citizen.
Ok, you've brought up a number of points in this thread, so let me attempt to lay them out so I can cover them all. If I've misrepresented anything, it's not my intent; this is just my understanding of it. Let me know.
The fees that a digital news intermediary like Google would pay are arbitrary, and uncapped and a news business can force the digital news intermediary to pay any amount of money the news business desires.
People will spin up new news businesses in order to bilk any digital news intermediary for big fines.
Google is like a TV, cellphone, or other hardware that has no control over the information presented.
This bill makes it easier for non-Canadian media to spread misinformation.
Are these correct? For the moment I'll write as if they are, but if that's not the case let me know.
1.a) The fees are capped. As per the bill:
1.b The fees are based on the scope of the violation. As per the bill:
If they're a legit news business and they take Google to court, they can get a payout, but then they're a functioning news business, which seems to be in Canada's best interest?
Google (and Facebook) determine what news is shown on their platforms. They aren't hardware, where anything you say to be displayed will be displayed; they have editorial control over what's shown, and derive benefit from being the central repository of news, as opposed to people engaging in news discovery on the news business's website. This is a distinct (if difficult to quantify) harm to the news business.
Given that Google has pulled out, I don't see how mis/disinformation is any more likely? I can see an argument that if they'd decided to stay, shoddy or malicious news would have negotiated very low or zero profit rates to make it more likely for Google to feature their "news". However, from the bill:
That final one is the kicker. If Google only had deals with a few of the worst rags, that wouldn't be enough, as they wouldn't have a diverse Canadian news base to provide.
But all of that is just trying to refute the points you've brought up, rather than saying why I think the bill is good for Canada and Canadians. These are my points in its favor:
1.a) As far as funding, they can sell fewer ads since someone is only going to hit a single page on the site. That means they have to pack in as many ads as possible to that experience in order to make any money on a pageview. This also degrades the reading experience, which ties into 1.b.
1.b) Outside of the largest outlets, they have trouble building a regular group of readers. Building a name as an independent news outlet is harder than ever, since your headline article on small town political corruption is jammed in a news feed between "this cat did a funny thing" and "here's the best crops to plant next to watermelons."
1.c) These two issues combined make it much harder for news businesses to fund. Ad revenue is choked by limited user interactions with the site, and subscriptions are limited by the digital news intermediary being the channel through which users find their news, strangling proper name recognition and news business loyalty. So, if Google is going to be where people go to get their Canadian news, Google can compensate Canadian news businesses for the work they put in to find that news and write it up, film it, etc.
So, is it perfect? Certainly not. But does it provide a framework where Canadian news businesses can be compensated when Google extracts much of the financial benefit, and makes it possible for them to bargain collectively with one of the largest corporations on Earth? Yes. And I think that's valuable.
Ice read your reply a few times and you gave me a good understanding especially with your last point. What you pointed out to me is that the current news agencies have little/no bargaining power with the search engines. This bill gives them some bargaining power and assigns a higher value to their content for that bargaining. I can see how that would greatly help our news media.
Thank you for taking the time with your reply, I still don't agree with the bill but at least now I see some benefits to it!
I'm glad to have talked about it. It helped me expand my own opinion and understanding of the bill. I think on balance it's better than doing nothing, even if it's not everything we'd want to see to truly encourage an independent media. But don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, eh?
No worries. I do want to write up an appropriate response, but it's late here and I don't have the brain to do it justice. We're definitely both on the side of local journalism, and I take it not as combativeness, but passion for journalism and frustration with the solution you see as ineffective. I'll be back when I've put my thoughts together.
Sounds good! I look forward to it!!