Untrue. Google and Meta don't want to pay in order to link to Canadian news content. "Host" is completely the wrong word. If news organizations are truly helping tech giants bring in more eyes and...
In brief, the tech giants don't want to pay to host Canadian news content as required by C-18, so Canadians will no longer see it appear on Facebook, Instagram and Google.
Untrue. Google and Meta don't want to pay in order to link to Canadian news content. "Host" is completely the wrong word.
Supporters of the Liberal government's bill say that it is a way to keep tech giants in check and cut into their digital dominance and that journalists should be compensated for their work being used to help tech giants bring in more eyes and thus more ad revenue.
If news organizations are truly helping tech giants bring in more eyes and thus more ad revenue then I'm sure Meta and Google are very afraid of losing access to that.
But I suspect it's Meta and Google who are bringing more eyes and revenue to the news sites.
Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge focused on Google and Meta earning 80 per cent of digital advertising revenue while newsrooms continue to be shuttered, calling the decision to pull news access before the act comes into force “irresponsible.”
The act requires Google and Meta to pay to link to news. What exactly is the responsible step for Google and Meta to take if they don't in fact see linking to news as a major driver of revenue?
Responding to "You must pay for doing this" by no longer doing it is a perfectly responsible course of action, and it's embarrassing that the government is making statements otherwise.
Trudeau has previously said Meta and Google’s “bullying tactics” will not work and that his government is trying to ensure those companies do not weaken Canada’s democracy by threatening its media industry.
Who's bullying whom? Tech companies aren't threatening the media industry by pulling out, the government is threatening the media industry by trying to force tech to pay a handout to legacy media organizations. And if democracy is a concern, perhaps we're better served if Canadians have more access to Canadian sources, not less.
Last year, Meta made more than US$23 billion in profit while Alphabet, Google’s parent company, made close to US$60 billion.
Here we can see the impact of this article being written by an organization which would directly benefit from this legislation. A completely irrelevant reference to global profits which have nothing to do with Canada, let alone Canadian news.
The "What's the criticism of this bill" section, however, says none of the above. It talks about a stupid take from PP and a concern about media literacy, which is a far from comprehensive summary. It's not in any way a good faith summary of the criticism.
And it's followed by "A brief history of c-18", a section which simply summarizes the media and government's argument for the bill.
What a rubbish, self-serving article. Trash all the way down.
I mean, most people don't pay for ANY news subscription, and making me bookmark CTV/CBC wont turn me into a paying customer either. Question: Does this include aggregates like Reddit and Tildes?...
According to an Angus Reid report released in July, 85 per cent of Canadians do not pay for any online news subscriptions and Canadians under the age of 64 usually check social media sites such as Facebook and Reddit first to get their news.
I mean, most people don't pay for ANY news subscription, and making me bookmark CTV/CBC wont turn me into a paying customer either.
Question: Does this include aggregates like Reddit and Tildes?
Bill C-18 is based on a similar law introduced in Australia in 2021 that first blocked news from Facebook.
In Australia, Meta and Google entered into agreements with news publishers, but the minister never went through a designation process that would cause the law to specifically apply to them.
However, Bill C-18 is different since the Canadian government will not decide which company is captured under the law. Instead, companies will be identified through a regulatory process by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).
That sounds messy. It's not like the CRTC is well beloved and is already doing its job on behalf of the people. I, myself, view the CRTC as only half a step removed from lobby group on behalf of Rogers Telus Bell. How much tax payer money are they going to spend to decide which company is paying and which is not, and having to deal with legal challenges and whatnot, for what, how many Canadians will suddenly pay for journalism?
The fact is that we're all too broke to spend on "nice extras" like paid news. Fix the gosh-darn housing affordability crises and maybe we would have more to spend on news subscription.
My reading of the bill is amateur but my understanding was that the crtc will compile an annual report on impact to Canadian publishers and then use that report to decide if any additional...
My reading of the bill is amateur but my understanding was that the crtc will compile an annual report on impact to Canadian publishers and then use that report to decide if any additional companies need to be forced to the bargaining table. I do believe aggregators like reddit and tildes would be eligible if the crtc judges them so. Maybe services like discord as well that offer a search?
Tildes is a non-profit and therefore hopefully exempt. I guess they're making it "none except for Meta and Google and specific others" one at a time instead of "everyone except for these".
Tildes is a non-profit and therefore hopefully exempt. I guess they're making it "none except for Meta and Google and specific others" one at a time instead of "everyone except for these".
C-18 full text I’m really conflicted on this one I do think google and metas preview/summary content is over reach (although companies have largely submitted to this voluntarily) but I am...
I do think google and metas preview/summary content is over reach (although companies have largely submitted to this voluntarily) but I am struggling to understand the appetite to penalize simple linking of content. Are search engines and the like not generating traffic and and impressions for TorStar and company? From my few conversations with Canadians, they’re more interested in “punishing” faang companies and less concerned with the details.
I understand Australia tried a similar thing and tempered the law so I’m interested to see how this plays out
I made another comment in this thread to your point, but yes, this bill seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of the internet. Particularly in regards to linking and how heavily reliant the...
I made another comment in this thread to your point, but yes, this bill seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of the internet. Particularly in regards to linking and how heavily reliant the internet is on Meta and Google. See the 2021 Facebook Outage as an example.
Ultimately, they’re not just “big players” in this space, they’ve become cornerstones of the internet as we know it. And, as you said, I do get the impression that Trudeau and the Liberal party are trying to “punish” these large tech companies, which further emphasizes their tech illiteracy. In my mind.
I think there are very real issues here that need to be addressed and it is concerning that two private entities can hold so much power over information. But this bill doesn’t actually address any of that. They’re also +20 years too late to be upset about this, in my opinion, but that seems to be the swan song of the government and technology.
To your final point, I think Google and Meta learned from that Australian bill and won’t make the same “mistake”. Put another way, I don’t think they’ll back down. They’ve already stated they’ll allow for SOS news, which was a major factor in the Australian negotiations.
That’s a good question. I grew up in a RUMR area (Rural, Mountainous, and Remote) where SOS signals were used. Particularly when I worked with SAR and emergency services. So, I think it’s just...
That’s a good question. I grew up in a RUMR area (Rural, Mountainous, and Remote) where SOS signals were used. Particularly when I worked with SAR and emergency services. So, I think it’s just terminology that I picked up in that community.
The preview/summary is done exclusively by the sites being linked to. Facebook came up with the standard that's used, called "Open Graph", but it's up to the sites themselves to put the Open Graph...
I do think google and metas preview/summary content is over reach (although companies have largely submitted to this voluntarily)
The preview/summary is done exclusively by the sites being linked to. Facebook came up with the standard that's used, called "Open Graph", but it's up to the sites themselves to put the Open Graph tags on their pages. They choose to, because it benefits them: they'll have higher click-through rates if there's a well-crafted preview of the page.
DarkMoonEchoes has already thoroughly covered why this is a bad law from the perspective that it fundamentally misunderstands the internet, but it's also a bad law because the "content" people look at when they say the law has a point is put there by the sites that are complaining. They want to have their cake and eat it too, by utilizing Open Graph to entice people to click on their links while also getting paid by social media companies simply for being linked to.
Good for Canada. Google and the like can afford to block content from Canada as long as Canada is the only (or one of few) places that have this kind of law in place. However, if everyone enacted...
Good for Canada.
Google and the like can afford to block content from Canada as long as Canada is the only (or one of few) places that have this kind of law in place. However, if everyone enacted these laws and Google had nothing to scrape and display, they stop holding the cards.
At this stage, I kind of have the opposite opinion. I think Google is right and, at its core, this bill is charging for links. Which is a terrible and horrifying precedent to set. If, as you...
At this stage, I kind of have the opposite opinion.
I think Google is right and, at its core, this bill is charging for links. Which is a terrible and horrifying precedent to set. If, as you mentioned, other countries follow suit, the future of links all over the internet are going to be paywalled, making information even less accessible.
Despite the fact I hate Peirre and his [Conservative] party, I’m inclined to agree with him here. This seems like another bill passed by our current government to regulate and censor what content Canadian’s can see on the internet. The other being Bill C-11.
I can see what Trudeau and the Liberal party are trying to do. There are very real issues with media and content that need to be addressed. But perhaps inadvertently encouraging ignorance and news illiteracy amongst Canadian’s is a price too high to pay?
Especially when I don’t expect American companies like Meta and Google to care about Canadian’s. Why would they? There’s less people in all of Canada than in California. We’re also a separate nation that’s benefiting from and relying on their services. However, I do expect the Canadian Government to care. Yet they seem more concerned with “winning” and “standing up to bullies” than they do with how this will actually affect people now and in the future.
Overall, I’m pessimistic at the moment. I don’t see Google or Meta losing any cards here. I see Canadian’s losing and an ugly precedent for the future.
Ironically, this article about understanding Bill C-18 didn't explain much about the bill! They linked to an excellent summary, though. Notable highlights: This only applies when there's a...
Ironically, this article about understanding Bill C-18 didn't explain much about the bill! They linked to an excellent summary, though. Notable highlights:
This only applies when there's a "significant power imbalance" between the news aggregator and the news site, so Tildes and Feedly are safe for now,
The bill doesn't mandate how, when, or if payments are made -- that's based on "the nature of the content" and "how it is made available",
An arbitrator will step in if the bargaining process falls apart, which is neat. Seems like that could keep smaller news orgs in business too.
Overall this seems pretty reasonable? Without any articles to link to, the "News" tab in Google/Facebook would be literally empty, and those companies generate revenue from keeping people engaged on their sites, so they're deriving some marginal benefit from those orgs. Equally, with dramatically less incoming traffic, the ad-supported content on newspapers would suffer greatly. If the market's been failing to keep that interplay in check (e.g. Google/Meta are starving their news sources to death), it makes sense to me that a regulatory body stepped in avoid the industry from eating itself?
What you're describing here sounds like republication or summarization. I agree that these are problems and worth addressing! What I dont understand is the framing of this conversation as...
Without any articles to link to, the "News" tab in Google/Facebook would be literally empty, and those companies generate revenue from keeping people engaged on their sites, so they're deriving some marginal benefit from those orgs.
What you're describing here sounds like republication or summarization. I agree that these are problems and worth addressing! What I dont understand is the framing of this conversation as "linking" which is an entirely different action and, in my opinion, not harmful to the industry. I'll concede that linking is not mentioned in the bill but neither is anything else. Why not legislate the actions that directly impact the industry instead of giving the crtc carte blanche to name bad actors?
Tildes and Feedly are safe for now,
The bill doesn't mandate how, when, or if payments are made
An arbitrator will step in if the bargaining process falls apart, which is neat
It seems a little disingenuous to appeal to impartiality when the arbiter is solely chosen by the CRTC (a body whose mission is to protect the interests of one side of the table) and their decision is binding but, since it's a tactic often used by large corps, its hard to feel much sympathy. The "for now" is pretty ominous though... basically sites are safe until the crtc decides theyre not based on some amorphous criteria
Er, also, I was trying to describe linking (poorly, apparently) XD could you elaborate a bit on why linking isn’t harmful to the news industry? I’m guessing because most folks will click through...
[republication/summarization]
Er, also, I was trying to describe linking (poorly, apparently) XD could you elaborate a bit on why linking isn’t harmful to the news industry? I’m guessing because most folks will click through and see ads, so there’s no revenue to be lost (and only discoverability to be gained) by showing up in search results? For my part, I have an awful habit of doom scrolling through headlines, and I can understand how news outlets would prefer I do that on their website instead.
[appeal to impartiality]
Ah, I’m not doing that; I actually like that the government is handing a larger stick to news agencies than uber tech bro VC fund/infinite ad money firehouse corps. In principle, Canadian citizens can vote for change in regulations if it’s ever perceived to be stifling (which some parties are doing right now!), but no matter how much I try, Mark Zuckerberg won’t return my calls and discuss changing corporate policy.
I'm sure he makes some good points in this particular video because there's lots to dislike about this bill, but I wouldn't introduce JJ as some generic Youtuber. He's a conservative hack, and has...
I'm sure he makes some good points in this particular video because there's lots to dislike about this bill, but I wouldn't introduce JJ as some generic Youtuber. He's a conservative hack, and has been one since he was writing for his student newspaper. I don't think I've read a single thing of his that didn't advance some sort of agenda in a particular way, often in an intellectually dishonest fashion.
I mostly watch JJ for his culturally commentary which I find usually well argued and fun -- but that kind of stuff is inherently fluffier and less controversial. Politics only sometimes comes up...
I mostly watch JJ for his culturally commentary which I find usually well argued and fun -- but that kind of stuff is inherently fluffier and less controversial. Politics only sometimes comes up on his YT channel. To that end, he hasn't ever come across as a hack to me. He seems very genuine in his opinions, but again, I haven't been much exposed to his politics.
I mean, his politics isn't fully divorced from his channel, but here's a few videos that perfectly encapsulates 70-80% of his content which is about cultural curios in the US and Canada: History...
Perhaps not much of a sin to many given the state of modern media but I struggle to envision a Youtube channel of his being fully divorced from the persona as a writer he's cultivated in the last decade.
I mean, his politics isn't fully divorced from his channel, but here's a few videos that perfectly encapsulates 70-80% of his content which is about cultural curios in the US and Canada:
Untrue. Google and Meta don't want to pay in order to link to Canadian news content. "Host" is completely the wrong word.
If news organizations are truly helping tech giants bring in more eyes and thus more ad revenue then I'm sure Meta and Google are very afraid of losing access to that.
But I suspect it's Meta and Google who are bringing more eyes and revenue to the news sites.
The act requires Google and Meta to pay to link to news. What exactly is the responsible step for Google and Meta to take if they don't in fact see linking to news as a major driver of revenue?
Responding to "You must pay for doing this" by no longer doing it is a perfectly responsible course of action, and it's embarrassing that the government is making statements otherwise.
Who's bullying whom? Tech companies aren't threatening the media industry by pulling out, the government is threatening the media industry by trying to force tech to pay a handout to legacy media organizations. And if democracy is a concern, perhaps we're better served if Canadians have more access to Canadian sources, not less.
Here we can see the impact of this article being written by an organization which would directly benefit from this legislation. A completely irrelevant reference to global profits which have nothing to do with Canada, let alone Canadian news.
The "What's the criticism of this bill" section, however, says none of the above. It talks about a stupid take from PP and a concern about media literacy, which is a far from comprehensive summary. It's not in any way a good faith summary of the criticism.
And it's followed by "A brief history of c-18", a section which simply summarizes the media and government's argument for the bill.
What a rubbish, self-serving article. Trash all the way down.
I mean, most people don't pay for ANY news subscription, and making me bookmark CTV/CBC wont turn me into a paying customer either.
Question: Does this include aggregates like Reddit and Tildes?
From different article
That sounds messy. It's not like the CRTC is well beloved and is already doing its job on behalf of the people. I, myself, view the CRTC as only half a step removed from lobby group on behalf of Rogers Telus Bell. How much tax payer money are they going to spend to decide which company is paying and which is not, and having to deal with legal challenges and whatnot, for what, how many Canadians will suddenly pay for journalism?
The fact is that we're all too broke to spend on "nice extras" like paid news. Fix the gosh-darn housing affordability crises and maybe we would have more to spend on news subscription.
My reading of the bill is amateur but my understanding was that the crtc will compile an annual report on impact to Canadian publishers and then use that report to decide if any additional companies need to be forced to the bargaining table. I do believe aggregators like reddit and tildes would be eligible if the crtc judges them so. Maybe services like discord as well that offer a search?
Tildes is a non-profit and therefore hopefully exempt. I guess they're making it "none except for Meta and Google and specific others" one at a time instead of "everyone except for these".
C-18 full text
I’m really conflicted on this one
I do think google and metas preview/summary content is over reach (although companies have largely submitted to this voluntarily) but I am struggling to understand the appetite to penalize simple linking of content. Are search engines and the like not generating traffic and and impressions for TorStar and company? From my few conversations with Canadians, they’re more interested in “punishing” faang companies and less concerned with the details.
I understand Australia tried a similar thing and tempered the law so I’m interested to see how this plays out
I made another comment in this thread to your point, but yes, this bill seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of the internet. Particularly in regards to linking and how heavily reliant the internet is on Meta and Google. See the 2021 Facebook Outage as an example.
Ultimately, they’re not just “big players” in this space, they’ve become cornerstones of the internet as we know it. And, as you said, I do get the impression that Trudeau and the Liberal party are trying to “punish” these large tech companies, which further emphasizes their tech illiteracy. In my mind.
I think there are very real issues here that need to be addressed and it is concerning that two private entities can hold so much power over information. But this bill doesn’t actually address any of that. They’re also +20 years too late to be upset about this, in my opinion, but that seems to be the swan song of the government and technology.
To your final point, I think Google and Meta learned from that Australian bill and won’t make the same “mistake”. Put another way, I don’t think they’ll back down. They’ve already stated they’ll allow for SOS news, which was a major factor in the Australian negotiations.
What is SOS news?
Oh, just another way to say the news that covers emergencies (e.g. severe weather, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, etc.).
Got it. Is that just your own phrase? Even googling it with quotes returns nothing relevant.
That’s a good question. I grew up in a RUMR area (Rural, Mountainous, and Remote) where SOS signals were used. Particularly when I worked with SAR and emergency services. So, I think it’s just terminology that I picked up in that community.
SAR = Search and Rescue?
You must really like your acronyms :D
Hahah, yes, I’ll admit these are acronyms I hear people use in conversation so I’ve just embraced them day-to-day.
I'll say that SAR isn't exactly a niche acronym, although I wouldn't fully expect non-outdoorsy/military people to know it.
The preview/summary is done exclusively by the sites being linked to. Facebook came up with the standard that's used, called "Open Graph", but it's up to the sites themselves to put the Open Graph tags on their pages. They choose to, because it benefits them: they'll have higher click-through rates if there's a well-crafted preview of the page.
DarkMoonEchoes has already thoroughly covered why this is a bad law from the perspective that it fundamentally misunderstands the internet, but it's also a bad law because the "content" people look at when they say the law has a point is put there by the sites that are complaining. They want to have their cake and eat it too, by utilizing Open Graph to entice people to click on their links while also getting paid by social media companies simply for being linked to.
Good for Canada.
Google and the like can afford to block content from Canada as long as Canada is the only (or one of few) places that have this kind of law in place. However, if everyone enacted these laws and Google had nothing to scrape and display, they stop holding the cards.
At this stage, I kind of have the opposite opinion.
I think Google is right and, at its core, this bill is charging for links. Which is a terrible and horrifying precedent to set. If, as you mentioned, other countries follow suit, the future of links all over the internet are going to be paywalled, making information even less accessible.
Despite the fact I hate Peirre and his [Conservative] party, I’m inclined to agree with him here. This seems like another bill passed by our current government to regulate and censor what content Canadian’s can see on the internet. The other being Bill C-11.
I can see what Trudeau and the Liberal party are trying to do. There are very real issues with media and content that need to be addressed. But perhaps inadvertently encouraging ignorance and news illiteracy amongst Canadian’s is a price too high to pay?
Especially when I don’t expect American companies like Meta and Google to care about Canadian’s. Why would they? There’s less people in all of Canada than in California. We’re also a separate nation that’s benefiting from and relying on their services. However, I do expect the Canadian Government to care. Yet they seem more concerned with “winning” and “standing up to bullies” than they do with how this will actually affect people now and in the future.
Overall, I’m pessimistic at the moment. I don’t see Google or Meta losing any cards here. I see Canadian’s losing and an ugly precedent for the future.
Ironically, this article about understanding Bill C-18 didn't explain much about the bill! They linked to an excellent summary, though. Notable highlights:
Overall this seems pretty reasonable? Without any articles to link to, the "News" tab in Google/Facebook would be literally empty, and those companies generate revenue from keeping people engaged on their sites, so they're deriving some marginal benefit from those orgs. Equally, with dramatically less incoming traffic, the ad-supported content on newspapers would suffer greatly. If the market's been failing to keep that interplay in check (e.g. Google/Meta are starving their news sources to death), it makes sense to me that a regulatory body stepped in avoid the industry from eating itself?
What you're describing here sounds like republication or summarization. I agree that these are problems and worth addressing! What I dont understand is the framing of this conversation as "linking" which is an entirely different action and, in my opinion, not harmful to the industry. I'll concede that linking is not mentioned in the bill but neither is anything else. Why not legislate the actions that directly impact the industry instead of giving the crtc carte blanche to name bad actors?
It seems a little disingenuous to appeal to impartiality when the arbiter is solely chosen by the CRTC (a body whose mission is to protect the interests of one side of the table) and their decision is binding but, since it's a tactic often used by large corps, its hard to feel much sympathy. The "for now" is pretty ominous though... basically sites are safe until the crtc decides theyre not based on some amorphous criteria
Er, also, I was trying to describe linking (poorly, apparently) XD could you elaborate a bit on why linking isn’t harmful to the news industry? I’m guessing because most folks will click through and see ads, so there’s no revenue to be lost (and only discoverability to be gained) by showing up in search results? For my part, I have an awful habit of doom scrolling through headlines, and I can understand how news outlets would prefer I do that on their website instead.
Ah, I’m not doing that; I actually like that the government is handing a larger stick to news agencies than uber tech bro VC fund/infinite ad money firehouse corps. In principle, Canadian citizens can vote for change in regulations if it’s ever perceived to be stifling (which some parties are doing right now!), but no matter how much I try, Mark Zuckerberg won’t return my calls and discuss changing corporate policy.
Here's a summary of C-18 by Canadian YouTuber JJ McCullough:
I'm sure he makes some good points in this particular video because there's lots to dislike about this bill, but I wouldn't introduce JJ as some generic Youtuber. He's a conservative hack, and has been one since he was writing for his student newspaper. I don't think I've read a single thing of his that didn't advance some sort of agenda in a particular way, often in an intellectually dishonest fashion.
I mostly watch JJ for his culturally commentary which I find usually well argued and fun -- but that kind of stuff is inherently fluffier and less controversial. Politics only sometimes comes up on his YT channel. To that end, he hasn't ever come across as a hack to me. He seems very genuine in his opinions, but again, I haven't been much exposed to his politics.
I mean, his politics isn't fully divorced from his channel, but here's a few videos that perfectly encapsulates 70-80% of his content which is about cultural curios in the US and Canada:
And sometimes he will get more into personal or political topics but more rarely:
Maybe I should read his written content more, but from stuff like the above, I can't help but really like the guy.