Following the CRTC approval of Google’s Online News Act Exemption, the mainstream media demanded Meta to do the same thing.
When it comes to delusional moments, few top the mainstream media’s thoughts on link taxes. In that case, mainstream media really is living on another planet when discussing these things.
Yesterday, I reported on the CRTC approving Google’s application on the Online News Act. The mainstream media fought against this kicking and screaming because their close buddies wouldn’t necessarily have a chance at overseeing the money being distributed. Instead, an independent organization is going to do so. That dollar figure works out to about $100 million per year. Either way, it marked the latest entry in the mainstream media’s unbroken string of losses taken in this whole debate.
So one of the things I was curious to see is how the mainstream media was going to react in all of this. After all, they have long basically acted as though they are the ones in control of the situation even though the reality is the exact opposite. Well, today, I got my answer and even I was surprised about how hilarious it was. From City News:
News Media Canada, which represents hundreds of publishers, said in a statement that it is “very pleased” with the CRTC’s decision.
“The Online News Act is a world-leading regulatory framework that addresses the significant bargaining power imbalance between platforms and publishers when it comes to content licensing,” said the group’s president and CEO Paul Deegan.
He said it’s now time for Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, to follow Google’s lead.
“We now call on Meta, whose platforms are more valuable with real news produced by real journalists, to follow Google’s socially responsible lead,” Deegan said.
The more you understand both the history of the debate and the nature of how social media works, the more completely out of touch you realize these statements are.
First of all, the mainstream media hated this deal in the first place. They flipped out and screamed conflict of interest and did everything they could to thwart the deal including trying to demand that the organization that receives the money be completely defunded. They were absolutely livid with this deal likely because they had no easy way to immediately corrupt the process. In the end, the mainstream media got none of what they were demanding and the CRTC simply went ahead with this setup – exactly what Google requested. Now, today, the mainstream media is suddenly “pleased” with the deal – likely because they realized they couldn’t influence the deal and have decided to take the loss on this one as well.
Second of all, calling the Online News Act “a world-leading regulatory framework” is absolutely hilarious when you take into account what has happened elsewhere in the world. Make no mistake, link taxes are bad regulatory policies in the first place. Second of all, a similar link tax law in California saw Meta remain on board on top of it all. That is way more than what you can say about the Canadian version of the link tax law. Lawmakers around the world have been looking at potentially shoving their news sector off a financial cliff by implementing link taxes and have monitored Canada for lessons on what not to do. The Online News Act is not a model for the world, but rather, a warning of what not to do.
Third, there is no such thing as a “significant bargaining power imbalance between platforms and publishers”. All link taxes are are a shakedown of the platforms. It basically is an attempt to get free money from the platforms while providing nothing in return. The publishers themselves have long posted links onto these platforms in the first place with the idea that they would get traffic from these platforms. This speaks to the maxim of publishers need platforms far more than platforms need publishers. The only ones really deriving a benefit from the existing relationship are the publishers. As one of many examples of proof of this, when Meta platforms dropped news links, their traffic remained completely unchanged, proving once and for all that platforms don’t need news links to survive.
Fourth, to call this a licensing issue is complete and utter nonsense. This is a callback to the complete fabrication that platforms scrape and “steal” news content. That has never happened and the publishers never provided a shred of evidence to prove their point throughout the entire debate. As I’ve said from the beginning, if this activity was even happening, existing laws cover this. This is known as copyright laws. If platforms are well and truly using news media content for their own profits without authorization, then the publishers can file a copyright infringement complaint. They never did this because the “use” they so often referred to falls well within the bounds of fair dealing (Canada)/fair use (US). There is no claim and there is no legal requirement to create a licensing agreement outside of the link taxes which were built up from scratch to dream up a whole new requirement in this rent seeking exercise.
Fifth, to think that the publishers have any control over the debate to the point of being able to demand Meta to follow suit is weapons grade delusional. When Meta dropped news links from their platform last year in Canada, they showed no signs that they were coming back. There hasn’t even been anything even remotely close to them doing so. If anything, it served as a launching pad for Meta to pull out of Australian “deals” they previously inked to try and make the link tax situation go away (Meta’s mistake because there was never any shot that this would ever be a one-off deal in the world). Meta has long been making moves to move away from news content on their platforms and nothing has really changed to make them change their mind on Canada.
The icing on the cake here is the comments that Meta would benefit from their journalism on their platforms. There’s no data point that agrees with that in any significant manner. This really speaks to the double speak the media has long had on this whole debate. On the one hand, they scream about how platforms are “stealing” their “news content” and are demanding compensation. Then, on the other hand, they are screaming censorship when the platforms drop their news links. This is the mainstream media trying to have it both ways on this debate and the only ones they are fooling are themselves and the already converted to this highly warped thinking. Meta has long learned that news content has very little value to them and this latest talking point has likely no shot at changing this dynamic.
The only reason they are calling for this in the first place is because they want to stop losing money from the Online News Act. While the mainstream media has long tried to talk a big game about how much of a “victory” it was that they got $100 million per year from Google, that illusion of “victory” becomes completely shattered when you factor in the estimated $230 million per year loss they took when Meta dropped news links. In all, the mainstream media has been operating at a $130 million per year loss in all of this. No wonder there have been so many media bankruptcies in the last while.
What’s more, does the mainstream media lobby really think they can play nice in all of this on top of it all? After all, it was only just a few weeks ago that the mainstream media was screaming about screenshots on Meta platforms, going so far as to sick the “independent” CRTC on Meta. How short does the mainstream media think Meta’s memory is? If anything, it is very obvious the mainstream media is playing stupid games here.
Ultimately, we’ve seen the mainstream media’s talking points change on a dime many times throughout this debate. It’s entirely possible that they can change their mind again when Meta refuses to play along with these games and continues to not allow news links on their platforms. Give it time and they could be back pushing the talking point that Meta is “stealing” from them and demanding the CRTC crack down on Meta over screenshots. The screenshots argument always was a massive Hail Mary shot to begin with and if they really go through with basically completely reinterpreting the Online News Act to include screenshots (even though it’s nowhere to be found in the law), the obvious risk is that Meta just blocks Canada altogether which, in turn, means that the mainstream media shoots themselves in the foot… again.
Either way, this really should be the end of the debate on link taxes in Canada. The mainstream media really needs to accept the losses they took and realize that they can only inflict further damage on themselves. The last thing the mainstream media wants is for the Liberal party going in to an election fielding questions on why Canadian’s can no longer access Meta’s platforms. After all, that further risks the Conservative party taking power and not only scrapping Canada’s link tax, but also scrapping the many bailouts and subsidies for the mainstream media on top of it all. While that might restore news links on Meta platform in the end, it would also leave the mainstream media in further financial ruins. I suppose the only question here is whether or not the mainstream media is stupid enough to go down that road. Time will tell on that one.
