Even as the Online News Act was passed in Ottawa, Meta (Facebook) confirmed that it wants to block Canadian news sites from its platforms. Is this law the right way to stand up to GAFAM and strengthen the Canadian information ecosystem?
It is Australian legislation that strongly inspired Bill C-18 tabled by the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau. Often praised in the journalistic world, this approach of paying royalties to the media by the digital giants has sometimes been referred to as the “Australian model”. According to its promoters, these laws aim to “force” the digital giants to pay their fair share to the news media.
However, even as the law was passed, we learned that Meta was following up on its threat to block Canadian news media content from its platforms. What is going on ?
Meta’s response indicates that this legislative framework may not be as strong as the Liberal government suggests. In fact, this law does not introduce a tax or a tax, but rather offers incentives for negotiations between GAFAM and the news media. In the end, the government does not “force” much: it oversees the production of agreements between private organizations. The state will only intervene if the negotiations break down.
Since this law sets up a fairly classic contractual logic, should we be surprised that Meta responds by following this same logic? Meta’s announcement has been described in hyperbolic terms by several commentators: Minister Pablo Rodriguez even called this decision an “attack on a sovereign government”!
Yet no one has demonstrated how Meta’s strategy violates any Canadian law — including the Online News Act passed last week. The law encourages negotiation, Meta negotiates.
A major flaw
Recent events have brought to light other contradictions in the discourse of the promoters of this law. A recurring argument of the latter is that the publication of news media content on digital platforms constitutes a kind of “theft”, or at the very least a non-recognition of copyright. But then, why be indignant if Meta decides to stop said “theft”?
Meta’s coup shows that neither the federal liberals nor the news media want to see news content disappear from social media, because those media would lose the most. While the sharing of informative articles is a small portion of activity on Facebook, the circulation of this content on social networks has become essential for these so-called traditional media.
We touch here on a major flaw in the “Australian model”: by contenting itself with encouraging negotiation in a context where power is very unequally distributed, the law lets the strongest camp act according to its own interests and in defiance of the public interest. Admittedly, Australian law has made it possible to seek funding for the media, but it is estimated that 90% of new revenues have ended up with the three largest Australian media groups, including that of billionaire Rupert Murdoch. In a negotiation, everything depends on the balance of power.
The richness of Meta comes from the activity of all the people who use it. By relying on an approach that financially recognizes the sole contribution of the work of journalists, Bill C-18 lent itself to this blockage. Indeed, it is easier for GAFAMs to ignore a single type of content — however important it may be for the democratic vitality of societies. This is why a real fight against tax evasion by GAFAM and a review of taxation based on the wealth generated on Canadian soil seem to me to be much more promising strategies for sustainably financing the news media.
In short, the “Australian model” suffers from its timidity towards extremely powerful corporations which have repeatedly demonstrated their total indifference towards democracy and human rights. Rather than seeking to make the Googles and Facebooks of this world good corporate citizens, we must instead work to make their business model, which is problematic in its very nature, less and less viable. This means intervening upstream, in terms of massive data collection and the use of targeted advertising, for example, rather than seeking adjustments and compensation downstream. This is how it will be possible to regain control of the digital space.