Impact of Meta and Google: News Link Blocking in Canada and Potential Implications for the US

Impact of Meta and Google: News Link Blocking in Canada and Potential Implications for the US

On July 3rd, a reader sent an email to the editor-in-chief of a news outlet, Fenlon, complaining that they were unable to access the content. When Fenlon checked, the stream was gone and Instagram had a notice saying that Canadians couldn’t view the information. The notification made it appear as though Canadian law, which forbids the viewing of news items there, was to blame for this restriction.

Fenlon described his singular experience of being unable to view the work completed by his teams for the platform and being locked out of his own news account. Sarah Krichel, the Tyee’s social media manager, who works for another Canadian publication, also ran into the same problem. Before being blocked once more, she was able to temporarily go into the account from a different device to let readers know where they could locate the publication’s material.

This censoring of news articles on Instagram by Meta (the company that owns Instagram) is not a mistake; it is a conscious decision. By preventing Canadian users from viewing or sharing news links on its platforms, Meta is keeping its promise. Google also experimented with link filtering earlier this year and plans to put similar policies into place. Although Meta’s blockage has been applied inconsistently in Fenlon’s case, with certain feeds showing and some not, the situation may eventually deteriorate to the point that Canadian users won’t be able to read any news links on Instagram, Facebook, or Google.

Fenlon recognized that if Meta and Google carry out their threats to remove news from their platforms in Canada, this experience offers a peek of what the future might bring. The priority right now is to make sure Canadians are aware of alternative sources for CBC journalism in case Meta or Google suddenly cuts them off. Fenlon and his group make increasing exposure of their free news app and websites a top focus.

The Online News Act, often known as C-18, is the piece of government legislation at the heart of this conflict. The purpose of this legislation is to require Meta and Google to compensate Canadian news organizations for hosting links to their content in exchange for financial support for the suffering journalism sector. The Online News Act is officially supported by Fenlon’s employer, a public broadcaster, but Meta and Google are passionately opposed to it and have threatened to permanently remove news links for all Canadian users if it applies to them when it goes into force, which is anticipated to happen by the end of this year.

This law has an impact outside of Canada because it is being considered in several other nations, notably the United States. For these nations, the actions of Meta and Google in Canada serves as a test case, providing information on possible results. While the Canadian government tries to avoid coming out as capitulating to strong American companies, both Meta and Google are reluctant to give in and risk setting a precedent by abiding by these restrictions.

Canada is evolving into a testbed for the functions and authority of platforms, the government, and the media, according to Alfred Hermida, a journalism professor at the University of British Columbia. The result of this dispute will influence the environment going forward.

There are hints that Canada might be willing to make concessions. On July 10, the Canadian government announced the “next steps” for the Online News Act, three weeks after the law was approved and with Meta and Google appearing to be steadfast in their stances. These actions imply that Canada is looking for ways to change the law to make it more palatable to the internet industry. The Canadian government and Big Tech are still at odds, and Canadian news is in the thick of it all.

The Australian origins of the Online News Act:

In conclusion, if platforms satisfy certain requirements, the government may designate them as “digital news intermediaries” (DNIs) under the Online News Act. Only Google and Meta are expected to be DNIs because they are both significant actors in the online advertising industry. These DNIs will be forced to sign financial arrangements with qualified news organizations whose material they host, such as Facebook shares or Google search links. If the parties are unable to agree, the dispute will be decided by an arbitration tribunal.

This Canadian law is based on the contentious News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code, which became operative in Australia in 2021. Both Google and Meta threatened to remove links in response to that law, but ultimately decided to provide payments to certain news organizations. Although the allocation of this money is kept secret as is permitted by law, the Australian government believes that news organizations received AU$200 million. Other nations, like Canada, probably believed their own laws would produce comparable results and were less likely to take Google and Meta’s threats seriously.

This might not seem fair from Google and Meta’s perspective. Links are after all intended to enhance website traffic, and news sites profit from the greater prominence these links give them. According to Meta, users—including news organizations themselves—are responsible for posting the links, not the platform. They believe that they are truly benefiting news websites. Furthermore, Meta asserts that its users are not particularly drawn to its news content. They wonder why they should be required to pay for news links and be governed by laws that they are determined to avoid.

The Online News Act, according to a statement by Meta, is fundamentally misguided legislation that ignores the realities of their platforms, user preferences, and the value they offer to news publishers. Google also voiced its worries, claiming that the measure imposes an unprecedented fee on platforms for doing nothing more than presenting links to news, which is generally done without charge. They contend that doing so makes their products more unpredictable and exposes them to limitless financial risk because they are facilitating access to news.

However, others who oppose the bill, like Hermida, think it is faulty because it is likely to be advantageous to large legacy journals and powerful businesses that currently control a majority of Canada’s highly consolidated media. This might help them further establish their dominance in the sector. In addition, the government’s distribution of the additional CA$600 million in financing for news organizations over and above what they get through the Online News Act is still mostly unknown. Hermida claims that the law does not guarantee funding for innovative enterprises.

Law advocates contend that Google and Meta’s business strategies have had a significant impact on journalism and that the “link tax” is a method for them to make their fair share of contributions. The journalism sector has been considerably affected by the internet, notably in terms of digital ad revenues, which is no secret. This problem is made worse by the fact that internet advertising businesses, which are primarily dominated by Meta and Google, take a substantial part of these profits, which are only a small portion of what news organizations used to make from their print and broadcast products. According to a frequently reported statistic, Google and Meta account for 80% of all online advertising revenue in the nation. They are free to decide who and what they want to support, and they are also free to alter the conditions as they see fit. As an illustration, Meta discontinued a fellowship program for aspiring journalists in Canada when the Online News Act was passed. The Online News Act’s goal is to make sure that DNIs are compelled to pay and that even the smallest publishers receive some sort of payment. The bill is expected to bring in around CA$330 million annually, according to the Canadian government’s assessment.

All of this, however, depends on these platforms having linkages to Canadian news sources. There are large gaps in the news feeds of people like Fenlon and Krichel as a result of the ongoing confrontation between the Canadian government and Big Tech.

We’re waiting to see who blinks first. It might be Canada:

If the law is implemented, both Google and Meta have threatened to entirely erase any links to Canadian-relevant information. While Meta aims to remove them from Facebook and Instagram, Google plans to remove news links from its news, search, and discover products. As many of them largely rely on traffic from these platforms, this would likely have a severe impact on news organizations. The Tyee’s editor-in-chief, David Beers, stressed the possible drawbacks, saying that it would “dent our reach and revenues” and prevent urgently required innovation in the journalism sector.

However, it is important to remember that although big firms frequently make threats when the possibility of a link tax law surfaces, they rarely follow through on their promises. The government enacted a link tax law that applied to news aggregators, and Google shut down Google News Spain as a result. However, eliminating links from Google search is a much more important move. In reaction to a similar rule, Meta did temporarily remove news links from Australian users. However, after receiving strong criticism, Meta quickly added the connections back.

However, the Canadian government seems determined to put Meta and Google to the test. The threats were ignored by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and on June 22 the measure was signed into law despite their “bullying tactics.” On July 5, Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez made the “necessary step” announcement that the federal government would stop spending its $10 million advertising budget on Meta’s platforms. Even while this sum only accounts for a small portion of Meta’s $117 billion in annual earnings, it is a symbolic step that emphasizes the position of the government.

On the other hand, the Canadian government’s report on July 10 addressing the bill’s next steps noted ongoing work to create regulations that would set limits on the payments that businesses are expected to make or even let them completely evade the law. Meta and Google might be able to obtain exemptions if they give news organizations enough monetary or in-kind support. Platforms are more likely to choose this path, Canada is aware of this, as it is consistent with what happened in Australia. Because Meta and Google established arrangements with various news publications, exempting them from its restrictions, the Australian government did not name any single platform as being subject to the bill. As a result, Meta and Google might wind up being exempt from the Online News Act altogether. As a result, Michael Geist, a prominent opponent of the law and professor of law at the University of Ottawa, has accused the government of “caving” to Big Tech with a “face-saving compromise.”

However, there is another aspect to take into account that goes beyond the precise language of the law. Both Google and Meta have experienced major shifts in their financial situations during the last two years. They are currently concentrating on reducing costs rather than raising expenses. When those contracts are up for renewal, it is still unclear if they would be ready to give Australian outlets the same conditions or if they would be motivated to pay them at all. If they ultimately adhere to Canadian criteria, whether as a result of legislative requirements or exemptions, it might encourage other nations considering similar bills to enact them, ensuring that their news outlets too profit from such policies.

But if Meta and Google are adamant and remove the links anyhow, with or without exceptions, it might be disastrous for news organizations who rely substantially on traffic from these platforms. If other nations see the potential impact on their own news organizations, they could be less eager to pursue similar legislation.

Why American news consumers should pay attention to a Canadian law:

The United States, which is advancing the bipartisan Journalism Competition and Preservation Act through Congress, is a nation that is keenly monitoring the developments in Canada. The bill, sponsored by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and John Kennedy (R-LA), allows news organizations to bargain collectively with covered platforms. These platforms must have at least 50 million US users, $550 billion in value, or 1 billion active users worldwide in order to be included. The measure requires platforms and outlets to negotiate, and if an agreement cannot be reached, an adjudicator must be involved.

As anticipated, Meta (previously Facebook) has stated that it will take down news links if the measure is passed. The bill still has a lot of obstacles to overcome. Although it did so in the previous Congress session, it did not receive a floor vote despite passing out of committee in June. It was unsuccessfully tacked on at the last minute to a defense funding measure at the end of 2022. Additionally, the Speaker of the House, Representative Kevin McCarthy, pronounced it “dead in the House,” putting its chances of passing that chamber extremely dim.

There are other people that oppose the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act besides Rep. McCarthy. Big Tech firms and business associations oppose the bill because their interests are clear. The EFF thinks the government should focus on Meta and Google’s domination of the online advertising market rather than potential First Amendment issues, but digital rights organizations like the ACLU express worries about those issues as well. The American Economic Liberties Project, an antitrust advocacy group, as well as a number of media sites, including Vox Media and its parent business, favor the legislation, nevertheless.

It is important to note that there are other link tax laws in the US than the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act. The Journalism Preservation Act, a measure introduced in California, would have some web platforms dedicate a portion of their ad revenue to news organizations. In retaliation, Meta promised once more to take down news links from California users’ Facebook and Instagram feeds if the measure became law. Even if the law was approved by the state assembly, the senate won’t take it up until the following year.

Who is willing to compromise and who is willing to remain firm will be determined by the decision of Canadian legislation and the subsequent conduct of the concerned parties. According to Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Canadian Heritage, “the world is watching Canada.”

Accessing news from their preferred Canadian outlets may be challenging for Canadians depending on the resolution. It’s probable that platforms like Google, Facebook, and Instagram won’t have any connections to these news websites. On the other hand, consumers may still be directed by these connections to news websites that are about to get funding from significant tech businesses.

Leave a Comment