Discussions

Home
Discussions
Brandon Chatter
Google, Meta Remove Links To Canadian Content

Google, Meta Remove Links To Canadian Content

Simonwalcal
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 840

Simonwalcal
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 840

Google, Meta Remove Links To Canadian Content
7/4/2023 at 1:10 PM

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/google-canada-online-news-1.6892879?cmp=newsletter_Evening%20Headlines%20from%20CBC%20News_1617_1164142

I'm coming to this conversation about a week or so late, but it struck me as an interesting topic to consider.

I understand the desire of platforms big and small to want payment for content that bigger entities are profiting from. Google is notorious for this (how often do you not even need to leave the search page to find your answer?).

But at the same time, I don't like the idea of the removal of regional content (be it Canadian or otherwise) since it is hard enough to filter local-oriented news through the digital realm AS IT IS. Forget the national stuff that this will be targeting, participation in local politics is already at an all time low. While time restraints no doubt play a part in this, I also believe a big part of the issue is that where Canadians converse has moved. And the purveyors of information have not caught up.

Yes, I am shinning light on 2 different problems here (payment for content utilized VS ensuring information is available where people are). None the less, its hard to argue the 2 issues are not related.
bigmoe
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2181

bigmoe
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2181

.
7/5/2023 at 9:15 AM

It won’t inconvenience me if they block news stories. In fact the less distractive click bait on my feed the better. And I seldom use google to search for news. It’s better to rely on the news sites directly and they each have search features if needed.
Abbysmum
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 5039

Abbysmum
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 5039

News
7/5/2023 at 9:36 AM

I get 90% of my news from either the news provider's app, radio and/or newspaper. I sometimes google things, but now I know just to go directly to the bews outlets site. There was an article on CBC today listing about a dozen ways you can get news, at least from them.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/editorsblog/cbc-online-news-act-1.6897060
Trevor B

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 8881

Trevor B
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 8881

For the media
7/5/2023 at 10:58 AM

I want, I just follow them on Facebook anyways. They post the news links themselves. I just think these multi-billion dollar companies are just throwing a hissy fit because they actually are being made to pay for content they take for free.
Abbysmum
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 5039

Abbysmum
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 5039

No longer
7/5/2023 at 11:43 AM

Trevor B said "I want, I just follow them on Facebook anyways. They post the news links themselves. I just think these multi-billion dollar companies are just throwing a hissy fit because they actually are being made to pay for content they take for free. "
If you read what was written in the link I had above, I don't even think that will be possible once it comes into full effect in December. Even if you subscribe and go directly to their Facebook page, it sounds like it will all be scrubbed. Right now it's just a small test sample, like 5% of accounts, so for most people it will be business as usual for now.

And yes, billionaires throwing hissy fits fit paying their fair share isn't a good look .

Here's a link to how it played out in Australia. The news completely disappeared from feeds. Eventually, Google and Facebook paid up.

https://www.wired.com/story/australia-media-code-facebook-google/
Trevor B

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 8881

Trevor B
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 8881

Google and Facebook
7/5/2023 at 5:19 PM

will likely pay up here as well. And if more countries enact the same, is Google and Facebook going to block all news from all countries then? They will likely have to change to pay. They are making big profit on the content they take, weather it be our personal content or news media.
Adam

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 15663

Adam
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 15663

Meta
8/2/2023 at 2:05 AM

Meta going ahead with ending linking to news articles that gov's new changes would force them to pay for....
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/meta-ending-news-availability-permanently-1.6924370

I respect CBC's best effort to try to cover the story in a balanced way... something that cant be easy when it effects them directly as much as it does. There's a lot of coverage out there that i think could leave the user with the impression that Meta arbitrarily did this because they hate news or are insisting on the links appearing on the platform for free, neither or which seems to be the case.
Still there's a side of this story that isn't getting told in a lot of depth that Michael Geist goes into at the link below.
https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/07/what-if-it-isnt-a-bluff-the-consequences-of-the-governments-epic-bill-c-18-miscalculation-begin-to-set-in/

As much as I absolutely believe in the value of healthy news outlets, I personally fall into the camp of feeling that gov has gone too far in trying to do more than what Australia ended up agreeing on. The path I see through this is for this to be more in line with what Australia has in place, and the sooner the better for all involved. I'll try to work a couple more news sites into my daily routine and hope other folks try the same, but in a busy life with only so much time in a day it just isnt practical for me to stay in the loop with as many as I would if the links were aggregated before sending me to the individual sites to read the stories themselves.
Abbysmum
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 5039

Abbysmum
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 5039

Links
8/2/2023 at 4:37 PM

Adam said "
Meta going ahead with ending linking to news articles that gov's new changes would force them to pay for....
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/meta-ending-news-availability-permanently-1.6924370

I respect CBC's best effort to try to cover the story in a balanced way... something that cant be easy when it effects them directly as much as it does. There's a lot of coverage out there that i think could leave the user with the impression that Meta arbitrarily did this because they hate news or are insisting on the links appearing on the platform for free, neither or which seems to be the case.
Still there's a side of this story that isn't getting told in a lot of depth that Michael Geist goes into at the link below.
https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/07/what-if-it-isnt-a-bluff-the-consequences-of-the-governments-epic-bill-c-18-miscalculation-begin-to-set-in/

As much as I absolutely believe in the value of healthy news outlets, I personally fall into the camp of feeling that gov has gone too far in trying to do more than what Australia ended up agreeing on. The path I see through this is for this to be more in line with what Australia has in place, and the sooner the better for all involved. I'll try to work a couple more news sites into my daily routine and hope other folks try the same, but in a busy life with only so much time in a day it just isnt practical for me to stay in the loop with as many as I would if the links were aggregated before sending me to the individual sites to read the stories themselves.
"
Thanks for the links. As much as I respect Michael Giest, I think he and others are glossing over the fact that what Australia ultimately negotiated should be the ground floor. No one's deal should be better for Meta or Google than that deal, and it should only become more painful for them from there as subsequent jurisdictions enact similar rules.

Did Canada plow ahead? Absolutely. Is it now law? You bet. Can it be changed? Of course, that's how law works. After Australia's experience, it showed that a heavy hand is needed. The larger and possibly only real miscalculation will be the timing. News is a shrinking segment of their business, so it might not hurt them in the end. We might be 5 years too late.
Yuzu
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 107

Yuzu
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 107

News
8/5/2023 at 5:36 PM

I've been confused about this for a while now, perhaps someone with more knowledge of the issue at hand can enlighten me. I understand that any company, news outlets i:ncluded, will always take more money when it is offered to them, so they would love to have $$$ for clicks, but why is it necessary? Like most of us busy people, I used FB for my news source, but I OFTEN clicked on the news articles, bringing me to their websites AND, by extension, their advertisements (which I always figured is how they made their money?). How did they not generate income off the clicks driven by those social media sites that led to viewers of their advertisements? Until this whole uproar, I actually thought they were GLAD to be able to drive traffic through social media, not resentful and wanting money for those clicks. In today's fast paced news world, where news is often spread at the source by people on hand at the time with a cell phone video camera, why would news outlets be balking at the idea of a social media giant sharing their news for free, but then generating clicks to their sites that lead to massive ad revenue? What am I missing here? I know for myself, and I would assume millions of others, not having access to these sites on social media means I will simply not be reading their news articles.
Trevor B

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 8881

Trevor B
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 8881

Looks like
8/6/2023 at 12:02 PM

Meta just didn't remove Canadian news but all news from us seeing it.

Try uploading a video with music to YouTube. The copyright holders will flag the video and will place ads all over it so the copyright holders still get revenue. I'm sure Meta does the same thing. But now Meta and Google doesn't want to compensate news organizations.
Adam

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 15663

Adam
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 15663

Latest
8/8/2023 at 7:57 PM

Now a coalition of publishers has raised issue with Competition Bureau re Meta choosing to not in effect purchase links to news stories at the value being attached to them by the new law:
https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/08/media-publishers-file-flawed-competition-act-application-over-meta-blocking-news-links/

Again tons of respect for the role of news media and I’m a regular cheerleader for outlets big and small to find viable ways to support their business in this new mindshare & monetization environment… but “pay us for those links” and “you must link to us” are two thoughts I have a hard time reconciling with in the same breath without much wider implications for the internet and the concept of linking. Many of the changes of the last 10-20 years are about a shift in mindshare with more time going to vacation pic sharing, cat videos, birthday greetings etc etc etc etc. If you force Facebook/IG to link to news and make the corresponding capital investment, do you force major competitor of theirs Tiktok to add a news section too (they’re a major “offender” in their own right as having a platform that gobbles mindshare that may have gone to news in the past)? Where does Twitter/X factor in? Do Spotify and Apple Music get forced to feature and pay for stations’ radio newscasts? YouTube with TV news?
I believe Meta when they say news isn’t core to their apps. As much as it’s not popular or easy to look at it through the lens of the trillion dollar (and massively profitable) company from outside country, there’s a lot more at play here than taking David over Goliath. If the assessment is that the cost attributable to it doesn’t make sense for their business then they should have the choice to not feature it. If this goes to an objective body without skin in the game I have a feeling that’s what will come out in the wash and all sides will have to try to find another way.

What the claim with the Competition Bureau makes clear is that both sides get value from the linking. I wonder if there’s a path that involves some sort of differential math that considers what each side brings to the table. I think this is essentially what Australia allowed when outlets were permitted to make side deals suitable to them with Meta and Google. If publishers objectively contribute an imbalanced amount to Meta’s bottom line then have payment be some objective consideration of just how much that imbalance is or isn’t.

Either way I hope publishers are sharpening up their app game. There’s an audience of people like me that want those links and stories and don’t have the time or the will to check too many separate apps or websites. As much as I’ve been cautious about what notifications I want to allow into my life, If aggregators are going to be pushed out or have impractical value attached to them then to me customized notifications on the phone is a great way to stay in the loop!
Adam

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 15663

Adam
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 15663

Australia
8/8/2023 at 10:21 PM

This link talks about the agreement in Australia. March 2022 story, but Meta and Google in the year leading up to that had paid $200M to Aussie media. How I read it, the deal has been favourable for their media. I havent seen a convincing case why Canada can't have the same basic deal, which allows outlets to make their own side deals with Google or Meta... with some improvements to transparency in how much outlets are paid to make negotiations easier:
https://financialpost.com/telecom/media/australian-media-thrives-after-forcing-big-tech-to-pay-for-content