The federal government announced on Tuesday the Online News Act, known as Bill C-18. The act seeks to “establish a new legislative and regulatory framework”, where news media and journalists will be paid by social media giants to share news links.
According to Ottawa, over 450 news outlets have shut down since 2008, with 60 alone in the past two years. Advertising revenues have moved to social media digital gatekeepers, “who profit from the sharing and distribution of Canadian news content.”
The government goes on to say 2020 online advertising hit $9.7 billion in Canada, with “two companies” (likely Google and Facebook) taking in 80% of revenues, and it was now “time to address this market imbalance.”
The government says Bill C-18 would force tech giants to “make fair commercial deals with outlets for the news and information that is shared on their platforms.” Media outlets of all sizes would be able to “bargain collectively” with tech giants, which would be “fundamentally fairer for Canadian news media.”
Canada says its Online News Act is similar to recent laws in Australia, but adds “greater public accountability and transparency to the process.” The government says the new law will “Canadians have access to quality, fact-based news at the local and national levels.”
“A free and independent press is fundamental to our democracy. It’s how we stay informed and engaged on what’s happening in our communities and across the country. Right now, the health and future of the news industry—especially local news—are at risk. We want to make sure that the news media and journalists are fairly compensated for their work. Now more than ever, Canadians need reliable and credible information, especially in a time of greater mistrust and disinformation,” said Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Canadian Heritage, in a statement.
Rodriguez appeared on the Evan Solomon Show on Tuesday and was asked why tech giants needed to pay for links. The minister said it was because links have value and should be compensated, according to the answer shared by Michael Geist.
Solomon then asks, “can you justify why links are compensatory?”, to which Rodriguez answers, “because there’s value to that. If you click on the link and go to the news, there’s a value to that.”
.@EvanLSolomon then asks Heritage Minister @pablorodriguez why require companies to pay for links. Minister says there is a value in the links and they should be compensated. So there is no doubt: Canadian government’s vision of the Internet is that links require payment.
— Michael Geist (@mgeist) April 5, 2022
.@EvanLSolomon: “Can you justify why links are compensatory?”@pablorodriguez: “Because there’s a value to that. If you click on the link and go to the news, there’s a value to that.
Government actually thinks the party providing free referral traffic should pay for doing so.
— Michael Geist (@mgeist) April 5, 2022
A breakdown of Bill C-18 by University of Ottawa Law professor, Michael Geist, can be seen below:
The Online News Act (Bill C-18) requires platforms to pay for links to news stories, including public and private broadcasters (CBC). Massive role for the CRTC:
1️⃣Determines whether platforms exempt from mandatory bargaining (if the private deal meets regulatory requirements)
1/3— Michael Geist (@mgeist) April 5, 2022
It would seem traditional news media are losing out to the likes of Google and Facebook because they don’t possess the technology or capability to create their own digital advertising businesses. It’s odd legislation because when news links are shared on social networks, click-throughs still load advertisements on news websites, but this law would make companies pay for clicks to begin with.
Want to see more of our stories on Google?
P.S. Want to keep this site truly independent? Support us by buying us a beer, treating us to a coffee, or shopping through Amazon here. Links in this post are affiliate links, so we earn a tiny commission at no charge to you. Thanks for supporting independent Canadian media!
This bill is silly. The reason FB and Google take such a piece of the pie is because they are very the best at selling ads. Hilariously better than print or online publications. And the reason for that is not the links, but all the data they collect with search and social interactions. If it wasn’t for the links they provide, online publications would have even less readers. The problem is that few people want to pay for news, and there are very few publications worth paying for.
I think the last sentence of this comment speaks for itself.
There are plenty of publications worth paying for but because people don’t want to pay for them, they are left having to dilute the value of what they deliver.
To step back though a bit, if good truthful journalism was truly only accessible at a price, news would likely be segregated by classes, with only people with higher means reading high quality, and it being out of reach by the majority.
This is a challenging balance that I think we have been dealing with now, and I think this bill is at least attempting to deal with.
High quality, well documented and cited Journalism should be a profitable endeavour that is accessible by everyone. How do we get there? If it is by the articles being ad supported, how do we make sure the profit sharing is appropriate?
1) who ever said it should be profitable? It would be nice for it to be, but no one is entitled to profitability.
2) the media is ad funded for their content
3) google and Facebook are ad funded for their search services.
4) google and Facebook drive views for the media and don’t charge them for this arguably valuable service, thereby assisting them with profitability for free.
So, although the media is already ad supported, and although the spyware companies are helping to drive their advertising revenue for free and although they are by no means otherwise entitled to profitability, the argument is that because the spyware companies business model is superior to the media companies in terms of revenue and profitability, they ought to provide a cut of their revenues to the media companies to subsidize them?
If someone can’t make a living off of something, they are less likely to do it, or the job itself is less likely to attract the good talent.
That’s more my point. Of course people do journalism because of the drive to get the message out there, but those people still have to eat.
There is money to be made in journalism, which is why many of our largest media companies have invested in acquiring news outlets. Of course there are some that struggle, especially those that are still hitched to older media types.
The question to your point is that while they have to eat, is it fair to expect the spyware companies to pay for their food? The argument that they should because they make money on ads is very thin, at best.
Further, the idea of having to pay to hyperlink is about as big a step away from net neutrality as it comes. I have no love for the spyware giants, but forcing them to subsidize unprofitable or less profitable businesses doesn’t seem to have many strong arguments.
I’ll add that since the spyware companies further profit by monitoring, collecting and analyzing user content consumption patterns, that would an argument I could support for justifying this money grab. But, not simply on the grounds that the spyware companies make money for ads, since they benefit the media companies already by driving traffic to them for free.
Also, if the spyware companies were blocking ads from the articles or injecting their own, that would also justify making them pay.
This is the way this government secures obedience and subservience from MSM – either by direct subsidies or bills like this.
Competition? Pffft, what’s that?
Yup. No better way to get and keep the media on your side than to pay them off. Even better if you can use someone else’s money.
Next, I fully expect Justin to follow his established pattern of making the new found windfall of funding dependent on pushing his narrative and supporting his view point. Only the “right” kind of media gets the new money.