No more news on Facebook for us
I’ve never used Facebook much for blog hooks, although it has cropped up from time to time. Well, it won’t any more. The feds are about to pass a law mandating that social media have to pay for news in Canada, so Meta has decreed that Facebook and Instagram won’t be delivering news stories any more (I don’t know whether Instagram ever really did, mind you).
I don’t know whether the law could be deemed to apply to this blog. I think I am too small beans but you never know. Does this blog even count as social media?
I make enough from the blog’s Patreon to keep the hosting and domain bills paid, and a little toward my internet bill from Videotron, but not remotely enough to pay hefty access bills from a dozen mainstream news platforms. We’ll see, I guess.
qatzelok 18:59 on 2023-06-22 Permalink
Wow. I didn’t imagine that your blog might be considered “social media” and thus forced to pay for linking to news sources by the new law. I hope this new law only applies to profit-making enterprises like Facebook.
H. John 20:30 on 2023-06-22 Permalink
Sorry Kate, but you’ll have to be worth a few billion dollars more before you’d be captured by this Bill/Act.
At Committee, Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Heritage, said that at the moment it only applies to two companies.
From Prof. Michael Geist’s Blog (https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/06/tough-talk-empty-answers-how-heritage-minister-pablo-rodriguez-is-propelling-canadas-news-sector-toward-the-bill-c-18-cliff/)
“The bill involves unprecedented government intervention in the media sector as it sets the rules that deem hundreds of news organizations as “eligible news businesses”, establishes standards that target Google and Facebook (Rodriguez admitted that no other Internet companies would currently qualify), determine the criteria for the increasingly government captured CRTC to judge the agreements, and legislate that the subject of negotiation is payment for linking.”
Further in the Blog
“The political calculation behind Bill C-18 was pretty simple. The government thought it could use a legislated shakedown of Google and Facebook to force them to pay for links, envisioning that upwards of 30% of the news costs of every news outlet in country would be covered by the two tech companies. Yet the value proposition for news links flow the opposite way as publishers post the majority of the links themselves in hope of increasing traffic on their sites, leading to greater advertising revenues. The notion of requiring Facebook to pay for links posted by their users never made any sense. It made even less sense when Facebook revealed that news comprised only 3% of its users’ feeds and was highly substitutable by other content.”
Kate 20:39 on 2023-06-22 Permalink
Thank you, as always, H. John
H. John 20:46 on 2023-06-22 Permalink
Geist argues that the Act (it received Royal Assent earlier today) is arguably already out of date because of AI:
“The current definition of “digital news intermediary” not only excludes notable internet platforms such as Twitter, Apple and TikTok, but also leading AI providers such as OpenAI (which operates ChatGPT) and Microsoft (which has incorporated AI into its Bing search engine).”
https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/06/as-government-moves-to-cut-off-bill-c-18-debate-the-reality-is-artificial-intelligence-renders-bill-already-out-of-date/
dhomas 04:11 on 2023-06-23 Permalink
Facebook pulled this exact same stunt in Australia when they passed a similar law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Media_Bargaining_Code
H. John 06:34 on 2023-06-23 Permalink
@dhomas, I don’t see why you’d call it a stunt.
In Australia, as in Canada, Facebook explained that people posting news links didn’t add significantly to its profits. The smartest choice for it, if it became a designated platform, forced to negotiate with news corporations, would be to block news links.
The Australian government proceeded to pass its legislation, and Facebook blocked links.
From my reading, the Australian government then backed down.
While their legislation originally applied to Google and Facebook, Australia amended its legislation so that Facebook was no longer a designated platform.
Prof. Alex Bruns, an Australian Professor of Communication and Media Studies, explains on Geist’s podcast what happened in Australia (his explanation of what that it means for Facebook starts around 24 minutes in):
https://www.michaelgeist.ca/podcast/episode-146-axel-bruns-on-what-the-australian-experience-teaches-about-the-prospect-of-facebook-blocking-news-sharing-in-response-to-bill-c-18/
shawn 08:44 on 2023-06-23 Permalink
This is a very interesting thread and I don’t want to dilute it but on a somewhat related media-business note, looks like Terry Mosher is pretty much declaring war on his employer (link to a Mastodon post) https://elk.zone/mstdn.ca/@jd/110593299505044546
Kate 10:47 on 2023-06-23 Permalink
Mosher must be well past conventional retirement age at this point, so he must be feeling fairly invulnerable.
shawn 13:11 on 2023-06-23 Permalink
Maybe something’s afoot? Their “executive chair” just abruptly quit https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/executive-chair-jamie-irving-resigns-from-postmedia-board-1.6453119
dhomas 04:22 on 2023-06-24 Permalink
@H. John: I called it a “stunt” because, by my reading of the story at the time, I understood the news blocking action to be a way for Facebook to force the government to reconsider. Facebook unblocked news in Australia very quickly and got very little concessions from the Australian government. Again, this was my understanding of the situation from afar and it may be somewhat oversimplified.
H. John 18:01 on 2023-06-24 Permalink
@dhomas When you say Facebook “got very little concessions from the Australian government” you are clearly wrong. As I pointed out Australia amended its legislation so that Facebook was no longer a designated platform. They are no longer forced to negotiate with media businesses, unlike Google.