We recently learned that Google is testing a minority of its users. Google has temporarily removed all media content from its search results1.
This test is a response to Bill C-18, the Online News Act. It goes without saying that cutting off access to media content is never a good idea. We can only deplore this decision by Google. However, before blaming the tech giant, one has to ask how we got here.
Advertisers have migrated their budget to the web giants, which offer advertising solutions better suited to their needs. In response, the traditional media, notably through the grouping of News Media Canada, pressured the government to intervene.
The argument of the media is as follows: the web giants use our content (and generate profits from it). We should therefore be compensated for this use. Thus, the law forces the web giants to negotiate remuneration agreements with the media.
The first problem with this bill is that the web giants don’t really use media content. We cannot read the content of an article on Google. Google only displays a link that leads to the article.
Moreover, if the media do not want their articles to be found in Google results, they can easily do so by modifying a line of code on their website.
If the web giants really used media content, they could use copyright laws to seek financial compensation. However, as Michael Geist mentions2holder of the Canada Research Chair in Internet and Electronic Commerce Law, both international law that Canadian are clear on this issue. A link to a news article is fair use and does not require permission or financial compensation.
Rather than talking about use, Bill C-18 uses the term “make available”. The bill even mentions that it suspends the scope of the copyright law with regard to negotiations between the platforms and the media.
Thus, a simple link to a press article is covered by this law. It’s called a link tax and it’s a really bad idea.3.
First, by basing the financial contribution on links (and, by extension, clicks), we do not encourage quality journalism, but clickbaits (click bait). Then, if the agreement negotiated between the platforms and the media finds its justification on the links, the platforms have no interest in giving visibility to the media. We therefore find ourselves, on the one hand, with media that have a financial interest in generating bad content and, on the other, platforms that have an interest in limiting the sharing of media content.4.
Second, if we consider that links have value, then why not compensate the whole internet? If Google and Facebook benefit from links to media content, they must also generate it with content that is not covered by C-18?
Finally, a direct agreement between the platforms and the media relieves the media of responsibility. C-18 provides for a direct agreement negotiated (or forced by an arbitrator) between the media and digital platforms. Other players offer other types of financing. For example, some are proposing to tax web giants directly and then redistribute the money to media subsidies. Google itself offers to contribute to a public fund which would be intended for the media.
The media, again through News Media Canada, reject this type of funding. According to them, if the money goes through the government, it would compromise their independence. The argument does not make sense knowing that the media already enjoy public funding. And if public funding compromises their independence, why doesn’t private funding?
On the contrary, if the money goes through the government, the financing will be transparent. So we can collectively have a discussion about how much society should allocate to journalistic information.
Few people object to web giants funding the media. After all, they are responsible for spreading misinformation. As tobacco companies are taxed to finance health, Google, Facebook and other web giants should contribute journalistic information. In contrast, C-18 seems to cause more problems than it solves.
For better or for worse, the internet has democratized information. The media no longer have a monopoly. Not all information is equal, as a society we must encourage quality information. But it’s all in the way.