Google To Remove News Links In Canada In Response To Online News Law (www.cbc.ca) 71
Google said Thursday it will remove Canadian news content from its search, news and discover products after a new law meant to compensate media outlets comes into force. CBC.ca reports: "We're disappointed it has come to this. We don't take this decision or its impacts lightly and believe it's important to be transparent with Canadian publishers and our users as early as possible," said Kent Walker, the president of global affairs at Google and Alphabet. "The unprecedented decision to put a price on links (a so-called 'link tax') creates uncertainty for our products and exposes us to uncapped financial liability simply for facilitating Canadians' access to news from Canadian publishers."
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the government was confident Google would come around on the legislation. "I will say the conversations with Google are ongoing. It is important that we find a way to ensure that Canadians can continue to access content in all sorts of ways but also that we protect rigorous independent journalism that has a foundational role in our democracies," he said. "We know that democracies only work with a strong independent diverse media and we will continue to work for that."
The bill has been pitched as a way to keep news outlets solvent after advertising moved en masse to digital platforms, virtually wiping out a major revenue stream for journalism. [...] In an attempt to reverse the revenue decline, the government's new regulatory regime will require companies like Google and the Meta-owned Facebook -- and other major online platforms that reproduce or facilitate access to news content -- to either pay to post content or go through a binding arbitration process led by an arms-length regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). An outlet will be considered an eligible news business if it regularly employs two or more journalists in Canada, operates largely within Canada and produces content that is edited and designed in this country. Google and Meta have signaled they'd rather get out of the news-posting business altogether rather than deal with this process. Meta also announced last week that would be removing all news content from Facebook and Instagram for users in Canada. You can read more about the Online News Act here.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the government was confident Google would come around on the legislation. "I will say the conversations with Google are ongoing. It is important that we find a way to ensure that Canadians can continue to access content in all sorts of ways but also that we protect rigorous independent journalism that has a foundational role in our democracies," he said. "We know that democracies only work with a strong independent diverse media and we will continue to work for that."
The bill has been pitched as a way to keep news outlets solvent after advertising moved en masse to digital platforms, virtually wiping out a major revenue stream for journalism. [...] In an attempt to reverse the revenue decline, the government's new regulatory regime will require companies like Google and the Meta-owned Facebook -- and other major online platforms that reproduce or facilitate access to news content -- to either pay to post content or go through a binding arbitration process led by an arms-length regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). An outlet will be considered an eligible news business if it regularly employs two or more journalists in Canada, operates largely within Canada and produces content that is edited and designed in this country. Google and Meta have signaled they'd rather get out of the news-posting business altogether rather than deal with this process. Meta also announced last week that would be removing all news content from Facebook and Instagram for users in Canada. You can read more about the Online News Act here.
And nothing of value was lost... (Score:2, Insightful)
"News links". These days, a "news cycle" is a propaganda lifespan. Plus, Canada has some awesome, objective news sites like the CBC and others.
Now, if that law could propagate to the US, that would be nice as well, perhaps restore sanity when people realize they don't have to keep on trying to choke each others' throats, or whatever Russia's objectives are.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So Canadians will be able to search for news (Score:2)
without Google bias? What's not to love?
Re:So Canadians will be able to search for news (Score:5, Insightful)
So Canadians will be able to search for news without Google bias? What's not to love?
Without Google's bias, perhaps. But certainly not without the bias of whatever platform pays the "link tax" or the bias of the organization publishing the news, or the bias of the advertisers funding the organization publishing the news, or the bias of the author of the news being paid by the biased organization publishing the news funded by biased advertisers, or the bias of the sources of the news....ad infinitum.
It's fun to bag on Google, but let's not pretend they are all that is wrong with the modern internet when it comes to factual unbiased reporting of news.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course news is biased. That's why people who wanted to form an informed opinion in the past read several newspapers with different biases.
What news doesn't need is an additional level of bias slathered on top of the existing ones. Google, and social media in general, are very good at keeping you in your own bubble and hiding stuff you may disagree with from you. It takes a conscious effort to break out of the bubble, get out of your comfort zone and read other people's opinions that aren't your own.
It's
Re: (Score:2)
Google, and social media in general, are very good at keeping you in your own bubble
Let's not pretend your average leftist would read an article about how masks don't work, or your average conservative would read an article about discrimination of trans folks, if it happened to popup in Google results. All the information is out there, and easily accessible. If you can't be bothered to type it into a search box, that's your problem (or decision), not Google's.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: So Canadians will be able to search for news (Score:1)
He is strong and wise.
I am a Canadian and can only say good things about him.
Re: (Score:2)
"Indeed. And, speaking of things that you'll love, let's talk about today's sponsor...
"NordVPN.... something something geographic location blah security blah blah. Go to nordvpn.com/justintrudeau, and sign up today for a 10% discount, eh."
Fine (Score:4, Interesting)
As a Canadian, my reaction is shrug. If I want to find news, I'll go to my favorite news sites and search for it there. Google has essentially been stealing ad revenue from other web sites by keeping people on their site as much as possible rather than encouraging them to follow links to the source sites.
Re: (Score:3)
stealing ad revenue
Define steal. If the sites are never opened by Google's end-users, then there was never any profit to be had from them and thus nothing was lost. If Google opens their sites, they get the ad revenue generated by Google's access attempt. If they then serve up the content, that's on them not Google. Further, there's multiple known documented ways [google.com] to prevent Google from indexing your site [exertpro.com] and thus prohibit this "theft" should you choose to take advantage of it. All signs point to the site operators being at f
Re:Fine (Score:4, Insightful)
If I started photocopying stories out of newspapers & pasting ads alongside & then redistributed them, I'd expect a cease & desist letter from the publishers. But because it's the interwebs pipes, the usual rules & laws don't apply & behemoth tech companies with their bottomless pit of money for legal actions can ride roughshod over publishers.
I absolutely detest many of the scumbag publishers that equally take advantage of their own content creators & I hate to defend them but there's no way that what the tech behemoths are doing is fair, even if it's kind of sort of technically legal.
Re: (Score:1)
Google is an advertising agency that takes content from other websites & charges its clients to re-publish it & put their advertising on it.
So a relevant quote that has it's source labeled with it is somehow "theft"? You clearly drank too much of the RIAA's koolaid. By that statement alone /. shouldn't exist because it quotes and links to the fucking articles it has summaries for. Hell, the fucking news organizations own sites shouldn't exist because they quote and link to Twitter and the Associated Press. (Though to be fair I assume the AP is probably paid by the orgs to post their shit. Hence why the orgs are mad that others aren't forced to
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
FAFO (Score:5, Insightful)
Serendipity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Its a hilariously stupid idea.
Google and other similar sites only index what your tell them to on your site. They also drive a metric shit ton of traffic your way if your site is relevant to what people are looking for.
All this does is remove Canadian news sites from google and facebook. So when folks search for news in those areas; they get (likely) outside news agencies reporting on canadian news, not canadian ones. Why? Because they would have to pay for those links.
Basically this is like charging the
Re: (Score:2)
> Its a hilariously stupid idea.
How do you think it compares to Australia's demands ?
"The argument was simple—Australia’s news industry should be compensated for helping Google and Facebook attract eyeballs. “What we're trying to do is replicate the ordinary commercial dealings that would occur in a market where there wasn't a huge imbalance of bargaining power,” he says.
"Concerns about the code’s flaws are leaking into Canada, where Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party is d
Re: (Score:1)
The same, basically. I just don't think their drop in revenue is due to google news and facebook linking the article and some text from it, and a link, driving traffic to their site is somehow costing them views/ads; and that NOT happening is going to somehow get them more traffic.
We will see though. Its not like I have anything but my dumbass opinion to go on :)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, yes, please, take your toys, go home and sulk (Score:4, Interesting)
News organizations will lose the traffic that they value from search engines and social media. They brought this on themselves. Fuck around and find out!
Spoken like another American who thinks they own the internet.
No, in fact, there will be no loss of traffic. Plugins like Foxish Live RSS [duckduckgo.com] and browsers that natively support live RSS bookmarks will again proliferate. This was something Firefox had natively, and which Google barred from Chrome (et al) in order to foster their own siphoning of content. Every reputable news outlet has RSS feeds - despite Google's attempt to bury any protocol or tech doesn't force reliance on them.
I have had live bookmark folders on my browser's bookmark toolbar for ten years for BBC World News, CBC World News, CBC Canadian News, CNN, and ABC news :
- BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/106... [bbc.co.uk]
- CBC: https://www.cbc.ca/rss/ [www.cbc.ca]
- ABC: https://blog.feedspot.com/abc_... [feedspot.com]
- CNN: https://www.cnn.com/services/r... [cnn.com]
I've said for years that anyone who relies on Google, Facebook, or Twitter for news deserves the rubbish they get. I'm glad that the law was passed, I'm glad that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others are having their temper tantrums, because it just means more people will take the time to set up their browsers properly and go the sources.
Re: (Score:2)
News organizations will lose the traffic that they value from search engines and social media. They brought this on themselves. Fuck around and find out!
Spoken like another American who thinks they own the internet.
No, in fact, there will be no loss of traffic. Plugins like Foxish Live RSS [duckduckgo.com] and browsers that natively support live RSS bookmarks will again proliferate. This was something Firefox had natively, and which Google barred from Chrome (et al) in order to foster their own siphoning of content. Every reputable news outlet has RSS feeds - despite Google's attempt to bury any protocol or tech doesn't force reliance on them.
I have had live bookmark folders on my browser's bookmark toolbar for ten years for BBC World News, CBC World News, CBC Canadian News, CNN, and ABC news :
- BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/106... [bbc.co.uk]
- CBC: https://www.cbc.ca/rss/ [www.cbc.ca]
- ABC: https://blog.feedspot.com/abc_... [feedspot.com]
- CNN: https://www.cnn.com/services/r... [cnn.com]
I've said for years that anyone who relies on Google, Facebook, or Twitter for news deserves the rubbish they get. I'm glad that the law was passed, I'm glad that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others are having their temper tantrums, because it just means more people will take the time to set up their browsers properly and go the sources.
All your news links are mainstream media. They speak as one when it comes to issues involving the US government. Try some stuff from countries that are in competitive or even in adversarial positions. https://www.rt.com/ [rt.com] may have its own bias, but at least we know what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course there will be loss of traffic and it will be huge. People reading news trough RSS are a tiny minority, the large majority either search for them or browse on social media. With such links blocked, people will simply read something else instead.
Re: (Score:1)
Spoken like another American who thinks they own the internet.
Last I checked, us Americans do own it. We own the DNS root servers, most of the data center providers, and pretty much every major website / service relevant to the public. (YouTube, various search engines, most social media services, teleconferencing, Office productivity services, online storage, etc.)
If you have a problem with Americans owning all of that, you're more than welcome to go build out your own infrastructure and encourage it's adoption. Hell, if it's any good, I'll even help advertise for
Re: (Score:2)
Re:FAFO (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone have revenue figures for Spain after Google News pulled out?
Solution (Score:3)
As a Canadian I will google for news with other search engines.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think those other search engines have the money to pay for this? Most probably don't.
Re: (Score:3)
A news story forces you to have an opinion? Clearly you are in need of learning how to think for yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
If you listen to actual leftist news (for example, Democracy Now) they regularly have guests advocating for Ukraine to lay down arms and allow Russia to take their territory.
They at least have a principled basis for it (pacifism) instead of the la-la land Putin brain spaghetti that the right-wing outlets push to advocate for Ukraine doing the same.
Re: (Score:2)
They at least have a principled basis for it (pacifism) instead of the la-la land Putin brain spaghetti that the right-wing outlets push to advocate for Ukraine doing the same.
The lunatic right is mostly pushing the same narratives as the lunatic left. It's the same no to war, they have nukes, not our fight, all that money, proxy war and generous helping of NAZI.
Re: (Score:2)
They use mostly the same list of bullet points. I was trying to point out that they are congruent with pacifist ideals, of which the left has been largely consistent in supporting. Wheres the right-wing outlets push bombs for Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Mexico, Palestine, etc, and suddenly when it comes to Ukraine they want to be pacifist.
It demonstrates the lack of any internally consistent ideals, logic, or morals, and the influence of the Internet Research Agency on these outlets.
why wait (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm curious why Meta and Google are waiting until the law comes into effect before blocking news.
Why not start blocking news immediately when this government first started discussing the bill?
If the consequences would be immediately apparent, maybe the Liberal government would have changed course before it was too late.
Oh well, at least we get to be an example of what not to do for other countries.
Can they also... (Score:2, Funny)
Remove the Canadian smoke from our skies.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
How it's gonna work (Score:2)
CBC: How much?
PM Trudeau: $0.05 per referral!
Google: Will CBC be paying us by card or cash?
Re: (Score:1)
Google: Will CBC be paying us by card or cash?
Doesn't matter. It's C$0.05. So just play money.
This is good news (Score:3)
I think regardless of the outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like they took publicly available content that can be linked to directly and wanted to charge for the privilege of linking to it. That fundamentally breaks the entire purpose of the world wide Web.
If you don't want your content to be public don't make it public. If you start doing an impromptu concert on a street corner you don't have the rights to demand everyone who passes by pay you let alone anyone who mentions that you're doing the concert..
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
The silly part is that google thinks this will affect traffic to canadian news sites. Canadians know exactly where cbc.ca is and how to type it. We are considerably mor
Re: (Score:2)
They are not republishing without permission. They are excerpting or summarizing, and providing a link. Much different.
Surprise? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are these decisions by Google and Meta any surprise? No, not at all. it'll cost them money and such things are an anathema to most companies.
This is another classic example of idiot politicians, like Justin Trudeau, fail to properly think things through before imposing some stupid bit of legislation upon the electorate. It's the same kind of bullshit that politicians in this country do, performative nonsense, about wanting to abolish Section 230 or, in order to "save the children", require web sites that just might host content that is remotely possibly harmful for children to consume to perform some kind of "adult verification" nonsense in order to access them. Do they really understand what the implementation of these actions would do to the free and open Internet? Maybe, but I suspect a lot of them really don't. Politicians don't require a lot of brain power to function as politicians. All that is required is a loud voice, ambition, and sociopathic character defects to be able to lie and stab others in the back without batting an eye.
Suprised that it actually seems like a Win (Score:1)
This is another classic example of idiot politicians, like Justin Trudeau, fail to properly think things through before imposing some stupid bit of legislation upon the electorate.
I completely agree...but sometimes even the most incompetent idiot can accidentally do some good that they did not intend. I agree that I doubt it will help the favourite news media much but it seems that it has broken Google and Facebook's control over what news Canadians see and read and I'll happily take that as a big win even if it was entirely accidental and not at all what they were trying to achieve.
Bih deal, let Google sweat (Score:2)
Not that the Canadian market here is big enough for them to really care, money-wise... it's just a precedent they are afraid of. Between this and reddit's self-destruction this weekend, it could be a great summer for the Internet!
There is no need for google. (Score:1)
https://www.ctvnews.ca/ [ctvnews.ca]
https://globalnews.ca/ [globalnews.ca]
Done. OooooOoooOoo. We're so scared google.
Leave Canada (Score:2)
Does it affect Slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does Slashdot have enough of a presence in Canada to fall foul of this law? After all, it's in the business of sharing news links.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sure why many of you think that google is necessary to visit any of these sites. Use Firefox with uBlock origin - visit the sites directly and Google will never know a damn thing about it - which is the desired outcome.
It makes no difference to the average Canadian (Score:1)
srsly? (Score:2)
"Big tech would rather spend money to change their platforms to block Canadians from accessing good quality and local news instead of paying their fair share to news organizations."
--Sherlock Fucking Holmes
insanity (Score:2)
What is the logic behind this? Google's whole business model is based on other websites paying Google to have links to them. But the idiots running Canada think it should be the opposite?
Australia/France Laws Largely Successful (Score:1)
Australian government says after a year their law is largely successful.
https://treasury.gov.au/sites/... [treasury.gov.au]
It sounds like Europe has put a framework in that various countries can use to implement similar laws, like France did:
https://www.euronews.com/2022/... [euronews.com]
This is not an isolated event in Canada, and Google, Facebook & others will negotiate like they have in the past.