Canada’s Online News Act: The Fallout Continues, As Google Will Block News Links, Other Support Programs
from the no-payment-for-links dept
This isn’t a huge surprise, as they’d already suggested they would do this, but Google has announced officially that it will block news links in Canada to avoid having to pay to send traffic to Canadian news sources.
We have now informed the Government that when the law takes effect, we unfortunately will have to remove links to Canadian news from our Search, News and Discover products in Canada, and that C-18 will also make it untenable for us to continue offering our Google News Showcase product in Canada.
The company goes on to note all the ways in which it had been supporting journalism in Canada, nearly all of which it will now stop because of the pure stupidity and open internet-breaking nature of the bill, which demands payments for linking to news, going against the fundamental principle of the web.
We already pay to support Canadian journalism through our programs and partnerships – and we’ve been clear we’re prepared to do more. As part of our Google News Showcase program, we have negotiated agreements covering over 150 news publications across Canada. Last year alone, we linked to Canadian news publications more than 3.6 billion times — at no charge — helping publishers make money through ads and new subscriptions. This referral traffic from links has been valued at $250 million CAD annually. We’re willing to do more; we just can’t do it in a way that breaks the way that the web and search engines are designed to work, and that creates untenable product and financial uncertainty.
Ever since the Government introduced C-18 last year, we have shared our experiences in other countries and been clear that unworkable legislation could lead to changes that affect the availability of news on Google’s products in Canada.
We have successfully collaborated with Governments and news publishers around the world on the shared goal of strengthening the news industry, and we currently have thousands of mutually beneficial agreements with news publications around the world.
We tried to take this same approach with Bill C-18. We repeatedly offered constructive feedback and recommended solutions that would have made it more workable for both platforms and publishers, unlocking further financial support for Canadian journalism. We also endorsed the alternative model of an independent fund for Canadian journalism supported by both platforms and the Government, an approach that’s worked elsewhere. We appeared several times before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Senate Committee on Transport and Communications and submitted detailed recommendations to both committees.
We advocated for reasonable and balanced amendments to the legislation for over a year. None of our suggestions for changes to C-18 were accepted.
This news follows on Meta making a similar announcement a week earlier. For what it’s worth, Meta has also announced that it will be ending the program it had to fund journalism in Canada.
As the fallout from the federal government’s Online News Act continues, Facebook parent Meta is terminating a contract with The Canadian Press that saw the digital giant support the hiring of a limited number of emerging journalists at the national newswire service.
The newswire agency was informed Wednesday that Meta will end the contract, which has funded roughly 30 reporting fellowship positions for early-career journalists at CP since the program’s inception in 2020.
Canadian Press executive editor Gerry Arnold said that in its letter informing the media company of its decision, Meta clearly linked its termination of the program to Canada’s Online News Act, which became law last week.
With all of this going on, even as the Canadian government was very clearly warned about just how damaging C-18 would be, Drew Wilson at Freezenet reported that the government is now scrambling to negotiate (after the bill was passed) on ways to keep Meta and Google allowing news links in Canada.
Of course, that quoted some Google folks saying that they were hopeful for an agreement — and that was before this announcement from Google, so it sounds like the negotiations failed.
Meanwhile, two of Canada’s biggest newspapers, Postmedia (owners of the National Post) and Nordstar (owners of the Toronto Star), are apparently in talks to merge, meaning there would be even less competition and fewer major news orgs in Canada. I’m sure that some would argue that this is why the internet companies need to pay for links, but it actually just reinforces how terribly traditional news orgs have been run in the internet age, where they’ve consistently failed to adapt or figure out how to actually embrace the internet.
And now they want to be paid for their own failures. But, instead, the end result may be that they’re in more trouble because Google and Facebook take away all the benefits they’ve been providing them already.
Filed Under: c-18, canada, google news, journalism, link tax, news, news links, news search
Companies: google, meta, nordstar, postmedia
Comments on “Canada’s Online News Act: The Fallout Continues, As Google Will Block News Links, Other Support Programs”
Let’s hope they actually fucking do it instead of caving to Murdoch.
Hopefully others like Congress and California will see the fallout and will realize just how much this will hurt them, if they have any degree of common sense or brains left.
Re:
As I noted in a previous comment Canada is not the first to try the link extortion racket and past attempts have also blown up in the publisher’s faces so while it would be nice if US politicians both state and federal learned from this it’s sadly not likely as the ones pushing for these laws are just too gorram greedy to help themselves.
And now?
Google, MSN and all the rest, can ASK for money to forward links.
Two of the biggest newspaper conglomerates are proposing a merger.
This does not bode well for Canada going down the same path the states went ages ago.
We will see if they implode or cry crocodile tears when they want to be listened again. If the do then I would gladly laugh if the Google et al charge them for any listings.
i have to wonder how these bias, self-serving fuckers in government positions ever get there in the first place! what evidence was presented to them so a real, positive decision was made, rather than one they were ‘encouraged’ to make by the companies concerned who, as is typical of them, want something for nothing!
Re: Evidence
It’s very simple.
First, they have no technical understanding of what or how links work.
Second, only those that donate sufficiently large amounts of money can speak and explain their positions.
It boils down to ignorant and paid for.
We have the best legal system money can buy!
Ottawa doesn't know how any of this works
I can tell you from personal experience Google Ads & FB charge a gazillion$ to drive traffic to my business while the chucklehead news media got it all for free.
Meta, Google: If you pass this as is, we will pull out.
Canadian Legislature: … but that wouldn’t be polite!
Meta, Google: We’re not Canadians. We’re corporations.
Canadian Legislature: but… but…
Canadian Legislature: aww, shucks.
Sounds like the only war Canada is successfully prosecuting is the one on themselves.
Crony Capitalism FAFO
Politicians love money from industry lobby groups. They don’t care about humanity if there’s a chance they can get their pockets lined.
“I hate big corporations! Let’s fight big tech corporations by making them give money to big news corporations.”
“What about the little guys?”
“They have to pay the big news corporations too!”
“So how is that fighting big corporations?”
“Shut up and pay to link!”
Watch what you wish for – you may get it. The feds suddenly cut off Canadian news = USA/World only = there they go
Way to kill competition
So the end result is supposed to tax everyone sharing news links but exempt the big players via sweetheart contracts because the law is not tenable in a useful Internet landscape.
Where is the point in handing the Internet over to the incumbents and punishing the small players?
It would have been much saner not to start meddling in the first place rather than make exceptions for the meddling where the damage occurs at a scale looking ugly.
Re: no.
“So the end result is supposed to tax everyone sharing news links but exempt the big players via sweetheart contracts”
No it was only the big 2 that were getting taxed. Not bing, not duck duck go, not yahoo. Not anyone but google and meta.
'Pay for what we were doing for free or just drop you, choices choices...'
And yet again publishers are finding out that they need the likes of Facebook and Google way more than those companies need them, now it’s just a question of if those two companies will stick to their guns or fold and start paying out after enough pressure…
Huge thanks to Mike for the link.
Covering this disaster has been a real patience tester for me. I’ve had people accuse me of being a shill for the platforms and others have outright blocked me on various platforms for the crime of… stating the obvious.
Stating the obvious includes:
1. Linking to the original source is not theft
2. The benefits of the Australian model largely went to the largest players
3. No, the large platforms are NOT totally dependent on Canadian news websites to keep running
4. The platforms are going to drop news links if this bill passes
5. The platforms have announced the dropping of news links now that the bill has passed
6. No, insulting the platforms on international media will not encourage them to back down
7. No, the Canadian government does not have any levers to pull to get the platforms “back to the negotiating table”
8. No, the bill does not address the “monopolistic powers of big tech”
9. No, the bill does not address privacy concerns with online tracking
10. Yes, the situation is a disaster and it’s of the media companies and governments own making.
11. No, running a banner on your own website saying mean things about Google is not going to help your situation.
Nope, I’m the bad guy clearly paid by Google to shill for the big bad mean platforms. Clearly, all that’s needed is to just believe hard enough that the country is still in “negotiations” and Canada will just automatically come out on top here. Magical thinking and pixie dust solves everything!
In the mean time, I’m hoping that my analysis on the Google announcement is right and I wont get hit with link blocks in the next 6 months. Fingers crossed I am not wrong and I won’t have to start looking for a new career when the other shoe drops. There is a LOT of behind the scenes scrambling to figure out how to survive the impending news links apocalypse.
Re: Shoot the messenger much?
Blaming someone for pointing out that this will not go the way that the publishers think it will by accusing them of being a ‘shill for big tech’ is like accusing someone who tells you that throwing a rock straight up is a bad idea because it will come right back down on your head of being a shill for ‘big gravity’.
Re:
Needs a number 12:
Yes, those two “big” corporations are no different from any other public corporation, i.e. they have stockholders who will see paying a link tax as giving away money that is rightfully theirs (lowering of the net profit margin directly translates to lower dividends and/or ROI). And yes, this will lead to a lawsuit brought by those stockholders against the corporation(s) for failing to fulfill their fiduciary duties and responsibilities.
Now, Drew, ask your assailants if they have any stock at all in the market, MegaTech or otherwise….. and how would they feel if they saw their ROI being sent to a non-deserving party (or non-deserving industry)? Would they keep that stock, or sell it?
Laws. You can regulate business only so insofar as protecting the PUBLIC good, but you can’t interfere with the obligation of contract. That translates to, you can’t force a contract to come into existence purely for business reasons, where no public good involved.
OK, now a number 13 is also needed:
No, there is no public benefit derived from forcing a link tax, period. In fact, as clearly evidenced by recent actions, the public will now be deprived of whatever good it had previously enjoyed from journalism of any size or location.
Bonus: In my opinion, of course. If the government were an actual corporation, with the public being actual stockholders, you can take it to the bank that said government would be sued into oblivion for actions like this. Talk about actively avoiding one’s fiduciary duties and responsibilities… Holy Shit!
Ignoring Canada
I’ll focus on US news printers.
If you want to stay in business stop printing millions of papers you toss on driveways and stuff in package boxes for free each day. The majority of which never get read.
Use reasonable cost or switch to add based subscription plans for your web site.
And stop with the floating video advert box that follows every scroll eating bandwidth.
If you’re site causes a crash and reload on WebKit browsers like Safari, the most stable web platform available, your doing something wrong!
Re:
News sites are like music labels, they think the only way to get more money out of their customer base is to vilify anyone who doesn’t give them money, and piss off their actual customers by making their user experience worse.
Re: Re:
Two sites I use have floating adverts. It’s the most annoying thing on the internet to me. Worse than midi music and the buzzing ad banner ever were!
I have never, never, seen a floating advert that didn’t crash and reload a serve-on-scroll page.
And here’s the thing with this. BA 101!
A million people at $1 is better than 100,000 at $10
From a data info standpoint.
NYT and wSJ are the big ones that don’t get their heads around the idea. Both have extravagant costs carried from Print days. Both are data info sellers.
Separately both freemium and Free CAD and office software bring in more revenue than $100+ programs.
The best selling PDF software cost $89 for a perpetual version release license and outsells Acrobat 3:1.
Charging $10-$20 for online access to a reduced cost news service isn’t sustainable. Not today. I spend on this site because they didn’t force me to. Wonder how many new users NYT would get.
Let's all mourn for the newspaper industry
Paying $80 for an ad in the paper about a lost dog in 1992 is an experience that has stuck with me. No tears for the medium that Craigslist started the destruction of.
If you look at the rest of what’s in a newspaper, sports (plenty of sports sites), “lifestyle” (always sponsored content garbage), “business” (more dead trees/capitalism propaganda), and news off of the AP wire (also available on the Internet), there’s not much left for this industry to cover.
How about local & national long-form, real journalism that informs, is valuable, and, most importantly, speaks truth to power? Nah, that would upset that powers that be that the industry is now running to get a chunk of the profits off of a, yes, overly powerful & profitable, but successful industry.
I’d press F to pay my respects, but I can’t be bothered.
Just pull their assets out of Canada then they will not have to follow Canadian law
If they have no assets in Canada they don’t have to obey Canadian law