We appear to be standing our ground!
Not my preferred choice of source but NatPo has more detail than some of the alternatives I saw. It includes some numbers as well as comments about the difference between Meta’s and Google’s approaches. Hint: they’re not the same, so there’s already cracks in the effort to make an example out of Canada.
Remember when companies had to PAY to get listed in the phone book, pay for for being discovered with ads?
WTF should google PAY news companies for posting links to them?
I can absolutely see good reason to have to pay for “content” such as images and summaries that may lower the number of clicks through to the news paper, but having to pay for every link is just absurd and as much as I have no love for FB or Google they are doing what is reasonable from their point of view.
https://www.davidgraham.ca/p/an-interim-proposal-for-media-subscriptions
https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/07/amac18/
I strongly recommend the book “The Four” by Scott Galloway. He does an excellent job of breaking down how the Four Horsemen (Amazon, Google, Apple and Facebook) destroy regional competition by leveraging their power as content gateways yet constantly skirt regulations that apply to broadcasters. Their cries of “we’re not a broadcaster, we’re just an aggregator” ring hollow when their algorithms determine what articles & headlines people see and they have shaped public opinion on various topics (e.g. elections, supreme court decisions, labour negotiations, public demonstrations, etc). He outlines how Google outmaneuvered the NYT and became the defacto gateway to all journalistic content because they were able to freely link to content created by others, while still putting an editorial spin on stories through their aggregation (eg should the story talking about “BLM protestors” appear before or in place of the story about “counter-racism demonstators” (narrator: they are the same story).
Might have to check that out.
Keep in mind my main opinion is that the LAW is written so broad and bad that it would essentially penalize any competitor to google or Facebook as a linking source.
The internet is literally based on linking, way back Netscape Navigator was THE BROWSER, and included a homepage with links to news and sites, then there was Yahoo, another mostly LIST based site.
Facebook doesn’t really go out and link news, users share news they discover with others, IE word of mouth.
Any manipulation of rank I see as a separate issue, however this bill seems to convolute the two of them. Might be better as a separate bill about search bias, one about content summarization and lets drop the whole pay per link thing.
Like many bills that have GOOD parts we have to look at the whole and many bills and laws are just turd sandwiches…
In fairness, they are probably more like newspapers, which are also not subject to broadcasting laws. In fact, I was reading through some newspaper archives (early 1900s) the other day. The newspapers contained pages upon pages of:
“Mr. and Mrs. James Smith hosted friends from the next town over this past weekend. A good time was had by all.”
It turns out Facebook was invented centuries ago.
Except their costs are exorbitant and eat the majority of the pie based solely on infrastructure and not the actual content creation. And there’s a palpable difference between “advertising your number in a phone book” and “having another company eat the majority of the profit on content you create.” Google and Facebook are not unlike Reddit; they don’t create value except by facilitating access to that value. Absolutely, they should earn something for that facilitation, but not the amount they’re currently earning.
“having another company eat the majority of the profit on content you create.” If they are summarizing and users don’t need to click sure, but linking is a whole another level. If the media outlet can’t survive with people ACTUALLY viewing the content on their site there is something wrong with the media outlets business.
So you have one company funding another to top them off to 60% of their costs covered?
So if 70% of a sites traffic is coming from people actually clicking through Google and Facebook what are we solving for?
Long and short I would be very OK with the law demanding compensation for summaries but NOT for linking… Linking is fundamental to discovering content and is essentially the phone book problem.
FB and Google DON’T get much value out of just a link… Hence why they are SO willing to just turn it off.
Taking FB and Google out of the picture and assuming the internet had no search…
How would anyone find these media outlets? A list? ok if a list why would that list want to include news sites if it had to pay to include them?
Do you use an ad blocker? Do you go to news sites ? If so maybe YOU are the reason they are going out of business?
Google and Meta are absolutely getting a shit ton of value from the linking. Those links, that content, is keeping users eyeballs on the platforms longer and hitting ads on the platforms, next to that content. The user opens Facebook, they see an article summary and pic from NatPo, they scroll, they see another one, they scroll, they hit a sponsored post, Meta makes money, NatPo gets nothing. Meta extracted value from the content… cough… link. If you still think the platforms don’t get significant value from links, consider how much ads Google would be able to sell if Google search contained no links to anything compared to now.
The percentage numbers for funding are currently meaningless. They’re the start of a negotiation process. What’s going to show up when all is said and done is unknown yet. Just like the knee-jerk reaction from the platforms isn’t the end result but their initial negotiation move.
Do you think news just didn’t exist before Google/Meta?
I don’t like the change, but it’ll probably help maintain journalism quality
We used to pay for news papers to get the news, or listen to TV and the Radio with Ads and the CBC was well funded and respected.
I am not sure pumping more money in will help with that. I think some form of accountability for the style (Neutral and balanced) / facts / quality of corrections needs to be tied to money.
It’s not pumping more money so much as it is changing the mechanism of delivery. If you’re not dependent on click through rates and etc. you can afford less editorialized content
That’s a great fucking point - this status quo is driving the rage baiting to a different level!
Then all you have to do in order to see it through the other lens is to think content when you see link in this context. We know that the platforms don’t do linking as in
<a href=...>Click here</a>. They all embed titles, summaries, pictures and sometimes whole pages. I think the conversation about linking in this context is a straw man. It’s not about linking. Then overlay how profits are generated around it. The analogies fall apart and the problem emerges. In the end it comes down to profit or wealth redistribution and priorities. For a while money has been flowing away from news and into platforms. We need to shift money back from platforms to news. If the platforms paid reasonable taxes, maybe we could redistribute it from there to the news. Except platforms don’t pay reasonable taxes. In this case it’s either coming out of citizens pockets, a new net subtraction, or it’s gotta come from the platforms’ pockets. We seem to have made the right choice to take it out of the platforms. We’re going about doing that.Mind you, the conversation about the accessibility of quality news content across the classes of society is distinctly separate from this and worth having. Depending on how much we are able to get from the platforms back into the news, we may be able to decrease the cost of access for everyone. If you’re concerned about that, you should be rooting for higher numbers rather than lower.
undefined> They all embed titles, summaries, pictures and sometimes whole pages. I think the conversation about linking in this context is a straw man.
I personally think it is the most dangerous aspect of the law and a major over reach and makes it costly poison for any popular site to link to Canadian news content even without a summary.
Other than CBC, news has always been a subscription / pay service… It seems people are not willing to pay for that now… Other than CBC our taxes SHOULD NOT be going to Bell, Corus, Rogers, Quebecor, double check and note that Canadian monopolies OWN nearly all the news outlets in Canada.
Essentially what you are proposing is Canadians give MORE to these Canadian monopolies both from tax payers and from other businesses (all popular web platforms that link to them as the law is written)
I’m obviously not proposing that. I said in plain language that we should move money from platforms to news, specifically avoiding taking it from Canadians’ pockets.
There isn’t a trivial way to get those without media companies going out of their way to provide the information. If I go over to that article on nationalpost.com, I see multitudes of OpenGraph tags, such as
<meta content="Ottawa pulls advertising, escalating showdown with Facebook and Instagram" property="og:title"/><meta content="https://smartcdn.gprod.postmedia.digital/nationalpost/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Pablo-Rodriguez-1.jpg" property="og:image"/>. OpenGraph, to be clear, is a protocol created by Facebook to standardize how web pages appear on their platform. If National Post wants links to their content to look like your example, that is entirely in their hands. Heck, it’s less work.(Of course, they won’t do that, because that would be stupid. They’d rather make an embarrassing attempt to extort Facebook for free money because they have realized advertising is doomed and they don’t know what to do about it).
Advertising seems to be making tons of money for Facebook. Do you not have a guess why it no longer does for news?
With all the talk about “they’re free to paywall”, are we going to consider market power imbalance here or are we pretending it doesn’t affect these actions?
I see the title and picture on facebook, but I don’t see a summary or the whole page. I see a comment from the publisher, which sometimes gives away the article, but that’s up to the publisher.
Yeah, why should Google pay for something other people produced that Google is monetizing. It’s just MADNESS when you come out and say it like that…
The trouble here is Canadian News outlets want their cake and eat it to.
The Canadian government on behalf of Canadian News outlets is telling social media platforms like Facebook/google/instagram/twitter/Lemmy? And search engines? that they cannot benefit over the hard work of Candian News outlets.
Where this is at play is when you see news on one of these social platforms that is summarized and posted directly on that social platforms, (think your Google feed, or Facebook wall) thus users do not need to go to the News Outlets website directly and generate add revenue for the News Outlets. This is the profit loss for the News outlets and why they are pushing/pushed for this.
Where the Canadian government and Canadian News Outlets are “overreaching” IMO is telling these social platforms that even direct links to the News Outlets Website are not allowed unless the social media sites and search engines pay for the link.
This means as a Internet user you will see no links or summarized Canadian articles anywhere on the web including your search engines.
A little and anecdotal here. What I find bonkers is News outlets pay to have their newspapers sit in a convenience store, so that individuals can grab the paper, pay for it, and read it.
So by this similarly, though very simplistic, I would think of the social media platforms and serach engines as the “convince stores”, and the requirements being that News outlets pay to display their links in said “stores”. This way when users click on the links the news outlets get their add revenue on their site, thus the customer “pays” for the articles indirectly.
This would mean Canadians still see Canadian News, and News outlets get their cut as it’s only viewable on their new sites directly.
Just my two cents.