Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ad Nausica's avatar

I have to admit that I don't even understand the basis of the media's argument here.

I get the first principle, that Meta and Google and others get financial benefit from linking to their news stories via advertisements. (I assume the media organizations also benefit from those links, via their advertisements ... but more on that below.)

OK, so the media wants a bigger piece of that financial benefit. But, if Meta and Google stop linking, that argument goes away completely. Are the media organizations arguing that Meta and Google must be OBLIGATED to allow links to Canadian media AND pay them for it? What argument could fit both ends of that? If the media benefit from the links, their payment requirement holds no water. If they don't benefit from it, their obligation argument holds no water.

The only mechanism I can see for a basis here is the old standard reference to Canadian content. If Meta and Google have platforms available to Canadians on the internet, perhaps CanCon rules can force them to carry Canadian content for Canadian "viewers", and then force them to pay for that Canadian content. That seems to be the case with Netflix, for instance.

Is that the basis here? Canadians must be forced to see Canadian content when on Facebook or Google, so those platforms are obligated to provide that Canadian content, and then are obligated to pay for it. Is that it?

Expand full comment
Grube's avatar

Concur. The govt seems juvenile in the extreme. They appear this way on many issues (not just this one) — entirely naive to the point of ensuring ideology drives their policy until it runs smack into logic and other such walls of inconvenience.

Expand full comment
18 more comments...

No posts