As for Bill C-18 (the first part of Michael's email), this is a good basic
guide to the implications of the newly-passed but not yet implemented
legislation. It includes criticism from Michael Geist:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-bill-c18-online-news-law-explained/
See also https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/02/billc18reality/
Geist argues instead for "a fund model with mandated contributions that
would support actual journalism without getting into issues such link
payments or copyright law."
It's very clear that Google, Meta, etc. have taken over most of what used
to be newspaper/TV advertising, especially since 2010. The drop in ad
revenue looks like it's going over a cliff.
It's also clear that the online model is simply better for classified ads
than in print: cheaper, easier to search, more up-to-date. Also more
possible to scam, of course. There's also more competition online in this
area. I would guess that newspapers are never going to get this revenue
(and it was substantial) back except for niche services like obituaries.
But in terms of alternatives to newspaper display ads or TV ads, I suspect
that the "social media" companies are not providing what they promise. How
many of us block all online ads? How many of us have got sick & tired of
all the blether and mostly dropped out of Meta or X or Instagram? The
social companies provide counts of hits and click-throughs, but how
accurate are they?
Newspapers and TV stations are at a disadvantage because they can't
provide per-ad counts - regardless of the ad effectiveness.
In any case, this bill is not likely to help community newspapers -- only
the big chains + those media regulated by the CRTC.
Given that we're losing substantial news coverage, especially at the local
level, which actually affects democracy and your ability to know what's
going on as a citizen, I think it's important that more money does flow to
media outlets specifically for news/arts coverage from Google/Meta etc. I
would tend to agree with Geist that C-18 might not be the most effective
way.
But what would be even more effective is for more governments to stop
advertising on "social", as the federal government recently has, and
divert that money to Canadian media. Unfortunately, Ottawa City Council
recently voted down a motion to do that -- the city spends 20 percent of
its ad budget on "social".
Alayne
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023, Michael Goguen wrote:
I'm not really up on some of this, and my memory isn't great, but a legal
expert on computer privacy and freedom from the University of Ottawa
named Michael Geist has been blogging about current government bills being
proposed or put into place by the Canadian Government, one of the laws
or bills was about making big companies like google and facebook start paying
money to Canadian News organizations for sharing Canadian News
links, I think maybe this is a little bit like the group 'openmedia dot ca'
might have described about a European law getting to place that they
phrased as a 'link tax'. Although the idea is supposedly to support Canadian
News media, which is starting to lose a lot of money to social media
(and those who control it), I think there is a comment I saw of Michael Geist's
where he mentions that the changes could affects 'all users', and
not just (if I am remembering the post correctly) news media, ie big tech might
start supposedly having to pay regular users for sharing links or
alternately blocking all of their link sharing so as not to have to pay, and or
regular users who share news links, would they have to pay the
news media because they shared their links? I'm probably getting a lot of this
wrong, I think there is better info about some of this available
online from people who have looked at it...
--
Alayne McGregor
alayne at twobikes.ottawa.on.ca
The shyness is not unusual. If you weren't quiet, you wouldn't have so
desperately searched for a way to speak. The reason you have so desperately
pursued your work and your language and your voice is because you haven't had
one. - Bruce Springsteen, in _Renegades_
