The news will disappear from your feed, Facebook announced after Thursday’s vote in Canada’s Senate formalized passage of the bill to force “dominant” web companies to the negotiating table with the media.
“We confirm today that we will be ending access to news on Facebook and Instagram for all users in Canada before the Online News Act goes into effect,” the California multinational writes on its blog. Meta, in both official languages.
In so doing, the platform is making good on its threat it repeated while considering Bill C-18 on revenue sharing between internet giants and the media, hoping to change it. The elected officials and senators had replied that they would not bow to the threat.
In the same message, Facebook wants to reassure its users, indicating that “they will always be able to keep in touch with their friends and family, grow their business, and support their communities.”
Facebook, like Google, conducted “tests” in the spring aimed at blocking access to news articles for a small segment of internet users in the country. Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez had a meeting with Google officials on Thursday. The company states that it “does everything [son] Power to prevent an outcome no one wants.”
“We remain urgently seeking to work with the government on another avenue,” spokesman Shay Purdy wrote in an email.
Ottawa’s Wager
“I sincerely hope that the government wins its bet,” Independent Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne said ahead of Thursday’s Senate vote, the result of which came as no surprise.
The MPs-elect had left Ottawa for the summer the previous day, leaving it to the senators to adopt the text. They had recently returned to the House of Lords the version already revised by the Senate, minus two amendments by Ms Miville-Dechêne to clarify that the negotiations between the web platforms and the media that distribute their content there would be “based on”. Value exchange”, one of the demands of the platforms.
These exchanges – which both recognize as the value of news on the platforms, whether financial or not – must guide possible arbitration proceedings if no agreement is reached, but not necessarily the previous negotiations, the government has ruled. The minister said it was necessary to “retain as much flexibility as possible” in order not to disadvantage the media in this expected showdown.
Royal Assent must therefore formalize the law regarding online communication platforms that make news content available to people in Canada, a process that will happen automatically. However, there are several months between the passage of the law and the signing of a first check promised to the media.
amicable agreement
The impact of Facebook’s message blocking on enforcement of the new law, originally intended to require “minimal intervention” from the government, is still unclear. If everything goes as planned, the platforms would independently agree with the media on an amount made available to them, for example after collective bargaining.
These platforms must continue to “make the news content available” to be subject to the law. Minister Pablo Rodriguez didn’t seem too concerned about Google or Facebook blocking their users’ access to news entirely.
“It’s a business decision, but you have to understand that they also make a lot of money in Canada. It’s a market that’s important to them,” he told reporters in Ottawa on Wednesday.
Then, on Thursday, the minister made it clear that the ongoing process would give the government the right to crack down on Meta. “Facebook is well aware that it has no legal obligation at this time. Following royal approval of Bill C-18, the government will begin a regulatory and enforcement process. If the government can’t defend Canadians against the giants of the internet, who will? the minister said in an email from his office to Le Devoir.
In theory, the Canadian Radio, Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) should first set the rules of the game by officially designating Google and Facebook as the “dominant” companies to fall under the law, according to the criteria set out in the regulation. The CRTC must then also draft a “code of conduct” that the parties must subscribe to in order to be able to negotiate.
These rules must also determine whether these companies have already made enough deals with the media to stop doing more. Both Facebook and Google already fund several press organizations, including Le Devoir, under agreements the amounts of which are kept confidential. However, several other media outlets, including major corporations such as Bell Media and CBC/Radio-Canada, are also claiming their share of the pie.
In Australia, a country that has passed a similar law, collective bargaining with the media has enabled web giants to be exempted from the law. Multinational Google multiplied steps in the spring To in law the number of media outlets with which consent would be sufficient.
An evaluation of agreements to avoid arbitration
Under the law passed on Thursday, it will ultimately be up to the CRTC, as the regulator, to assess whether the number and quality of the agreements satisfy it based on various criteria: that the agreements are fair, that support local production, such as regional and national news and upholding freedom of expression. The CRTC must also publish an annual report that captures the total value of commercial agreements with platforms without disclosing commercial information.
If the major platforms “that make news content available” don’t sign enough deals to meet the CRTC’s requirements within the next 18 months, they’ll be subject to the entire law. The financial consequences could be significant.
This would give any media outlet the right to bring these companies before an arbitrator. Their concern would be to estimate what they are owed based on the price of producing the news, the value the platforms derive from it, and the “imbalance” in bargaining power. The arbitrator must then decide whether the platform’s offer is sufficient.
Google and Facebook have sharply criticized this aspect, which amounts to forcing them to pay the media for the quantity of links to the articles they display, which, according to the two platforms, is contrary to the spirit of how the Internet works.