The Online News Act is no threat to the internet
When it comes to C-18, the Online News Act, much of the commentary has involved misrepresentations seeking to frame this legislation as a threat to the internet as we know it.
When commentators claim that it will “break the internet,” what they really mean is that C-18 will impact profit margins of dominant platforms because it requires that they fairly compensate the media outlets — those who create the content appearing on their services. Australia has similar legislation and let me assure you that the internet is still working there.
When some say C-18 will result in links being blocked online, what they mean is that big platforms are not above playing hard ball.
We all watched as Meta, in response to new online news legislation in Australia, pulled links to news, as well as information on essential services. We now know from whistle blowers that Meta calculated the withdrawal to maximize chaos and damage. But Canadians won’t be intimidated.
Bill C-18 is not a “pay per click” scheme. Those commentators who suggest this are misinterpreting the framework. They see it through a conventional approach to online licensing; essentially, a copyright lens.
But Bill C-18 sits alongside the Copyright Act. In the context of a digital platform exercising a significant power imbalance, it imposes a bargaining framework to require fair and good faith negotiations.
Some say that C-18 is a “link tax” or mandates “payments for links” and conclude that the bill will incentivize click bait over high-quality journalism, and, worse, that it will end free linking on the internet. But that is not what Bill C-18 does.
Nowhere does the bill mandate any kind of tariff or payment for a link. What it does require is that when links to news are made available by platforms that have significant power over news businesses, those platforms have to come to the table and bargain.
One of the ways platforms benefit is by using this news content, and the ability to access and share it, to attract Canadians to their services. Links play a central role in bringing them together.
C-18 includes an obligation on platforms to not unfairly exploit the positions they hold as gateways of information online by redirecting crucial advertising revenue from the same news publishers whose work they feature.
Finally, some have argued that only big media benefits from Bill C-18.
The evidence from Australia is the exact opposite. The whole point of the legislation is to get as many outlets as possible to the negotiating table.
There is strength in numbers. By coming together, the smaller outlets will be in a stronger negotiating position.
Online platforms have long touted their services as the digital public square, as an online space where citizens can connect to share ideas and make decisions about their lives, their communities, and their places in our broader society.
As a result, these platforms have enriched themselves immensely, becoming some of the most valuable enterprises in history, by using network effects to hold an audience captive.
C-18 levels the playing field so news businesses may receive a fair share of the benefit when their works are made available on dominant digital platforms. It is critical that we support Canadian news media by fostering the best conditions for them to continue to produce journalism of the highest industry standards that reaches our citizens, no matter where they are.
This issue is not to be taken lightly, given the number of Canadian jobs and businesses that are at stake, but also because the heart of the issue lies in the vitality and sustainability of our democracy.