Based on documents and testimonials from whistleblowers obtained by the Consortium international of investigative journaliststhe report of the show Investigation broadcast on March 9 exposes the underside of Uber’s lobbying with the authorities in order to “crack _ legislation on the taxi. We learn that the company used large sums obtained from investors seduced by the so-called sharing economy to finance campaigns aimed at discrediting laws that did not suit it. This saga resembles the current campaign by Google and Meta to discredit Bill C-18, currently being debated in Parliament. This project aims to oblige platforms to compensate for the value of the content broadcast on them.
In the case of Uber, we took off the make-up to present ourselves as an “innovator” at the service of those who wish to “share” their vehicle to make ends meet. Everything to seduce the naive who saw in it a gain for the environment and an “opportunity” to become an “entrepreneur”! Dazzled by the sirens of so-called innovation, Quebec politicians have dismantled the regulation of the taxi industry. The report ofInvestigation shows that this industry is now characterized by precariousness. How can the increased precariousness of taxi drivers be considered as progress?
The discourse of several large Internet companies also brandishes so-called consumer interests. It is insisted that the laws protect outdated business models. In these arguments hostile to laws intended to guarantee against precariousness, there is no place for public service requirements. It all boils down to individual choice.
The income generated by our attention
These days, to discredit Bill C-18, it is claimed that it would put a price on “free links” to media pages that individuals freely choose to do. As if the Web were a paradise in which we can access information without having to worry about the means by which it is produced.
What allows online platforms to generate income is their ability to generate attention from Internet users. For platforms like Google or Meta, the news produced by the media using journalists working according to rigorous requirements are ingredients of their value creation processes. This attention is then sold in the form of targeted advertisements. The model is so effective that it has allowed these large platforms to siphon off the lion’s share of ad revenue in Canada.
In the classic mass media model, revenue from advertising was used to fund the collection and dissemination of generally validated information through various journalistic methods. The information was published following editorial processes that in principle valued accuracy and rigour.
Now, advertising is targeted based on algorithmic calculations. Platforms like Google, Facebook or Instagram are designed to allow those who want to advertise on them to target their messages to users whose image, text and sound consumption profile corresponds to the types of “consumers referred to. These platforms work by valuing the time spent by each Internet user on “shared” content online. This is called valuing attention. What generates advertising revenue is the attention that content gets from users. It is not the quality, nor the importance of the subject, that counts.
It is this user engagement that platforms like Google and Meta turn into juicy revenue. Much of the material that generates this value is being appropriated without consideration. It is on this business model based on the appropriation of revenues derived from the consumption of news content that Bill C-18 proposes to impose limits.
Bill C-18 aims to redirect some of the revenue to news producers. Validated information, essential to democratic deliberations, is not free. To date, Google and Meta have chosen to determine that this content is worthless to justify sharing it without compensation. This allows them to recover for their own benefit the advertising value associated with this content. But can a democratic society tolerate that the production costs of validated information are assumed by the only producers of information, while the revenues it generates are recovered only by the platforms?
When Uber set out to impose itself by defying the law, many believed in the sirens of the “sharing” economy. This has led the taxi industry into precariousness. Bill C-18 aims to prevent the casualization of those who produce information. Ensuring the availability of quality information is a democratic imperative. We have suffered the dismantling of the taxi industry. Can we afford that of the news media?