Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Canada Google Government News

Canadian Government Reaches Deal With Google On Online News Act (www.cbc.ca) 50

Posted by BeauHD from the let's-make-a-deal dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the CBC: Google and the federal government have reached an agreement in their dispute over the Online News Act that would see Google continue to share Canadian news online in return for the company making annual payments to news companies in the range of $100 million. Sources told Radio-Canada and CBC News earlier Wednesday that an agreement had been reached. Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge confirmed the news Wednesday afternoon. "Many doubted that we would be successful, but I was confident we would find a way to address Google's concerns," she told reporters outside the House of Commons.

The federal government and Google agreed on the regulatory framework earlier this week, a government source familiar with the talks told Radio-Canada. The federal government had estimated earlier this year that Google's compensation should amount to about $172 million. Google estimated the value at $100 million. The company said it would not have a mandatory negotiation model imposed on it for talks with Canadian media organizations, preferring to deal with a single point of contact. The new regulations will allow Google to negotiate with a single group that would represent all media, allowing the company to limit its arbitration risk. Google would still be required to negotiate with the media and sign an agreement. The digital giant could also add additional service contributions, which have yet to be specified.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Government Reaches Deal With Google On Online News Act More

Canadian Government Reaches Deal With Google On Online News Act

Comments Filter:

  • Trudeau created a non-existent problem (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JcMorin ( 930466 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2023 @05:07PM (#64042257)
    There were NO problem with the news until our stupid PM Justin Trudeau decide it would be great to promote our media by passing a law that would require Google and Facebook to pay when they share Canadians news. End result? They block it, so basically any non-Canadian news is OK, but if it's from Canada is blocked. Now they look for a solution for the mess they created. Time to restore freedom and remove that stupid law! https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
    • But now you'll get your news back (on Google properties at any rate), and the news services will benefit to the tune of $100 million. Win-win, eh?

      • Not a win, it sets a precedent that you have to pay to give a hyper link to a site.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          They could always link to the news sites that never changed, the issue arrose because they would scrape and summarize the article to the point that very few people needed to visit the news provider to receive enough information to satisfy them.

          • Exactly. It more down to the fact that they are enhancing their own properties with data collected by scraping and processing other people's work. This does not set a precedent for you or I posting a link to another website on a page that we control.
            • No, the publishers have always had the ability to turn off scraping. They didn't though because they benefit from search engines and social media sharing. They benefit so much in fact that they actively encourage people to share and publish meta tags to control how their content snippets appear.

              • The problem was you couldn't turn of scraping without turning off the ability to have your site indexed at all. Google was playing dirty by making them tacitly agree to give them their contact for the privilege of being indexed.

                • Re: Trudeau created a non-existent problem (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by NomDeAlias ( 10449224 ) on Thursday November 30, 2023 @12:30AM (#64043031)
                  False, you can absolutely disable a single page, multiple pages or a whole site. You seem to have no clue about this topic. They benefit from search and social. Stop pretending them receiving millions of dollars in free advertising is bad for them.

                  Their problem is they lost their bread and butter classified ads to craigslist, ebay, etc. The value of the ads surrounding their content in an ecosystem flooded with inventory has plummeted and they still have the high cost of legacy print journalism with small regional news being the most out of balance.

                  If you were paying attention to what was going on you'd know many digital publications were screaming about C-18 because it was going to destroy them. That's how much they benefit from that exposure, they are reliant on it and are running profitable companies off it.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by NomDeAlias ( 10449224 )
            No that's never been the issue. They show you what the publisher put in their meta tags and the publisher could have ended their scraping with the snap of a finger by using a robots.txt file and changing their meta tags. All the publishers benefit from sharing hence why they encourage it on their sites. It's always been about redistributing ad dollars from profitable tech giants to unprofitable legacy news organizations with massive amounts of bloat.
      • The only reason Google would agree to this is that they sell adds that on all of those news sites and will earn close to or more than they amount they pay back. Otherwise I would have told the companies to pound sand. If the news companies really didn't want Google to index their pages, they can just edit their robots.txt and Google will avoid crawling them at their own request.
        • This guy gets it ^

          It's amazing how many people have no clue how easy it is for the publishers to stop Google from scraping them.
          • The publishers don't want to stop Google, they just want to force Google to pay for the privilege of directing eyeballs to their content. They never considered that Google might decide not to and that most people wouldn't give a shit about them or care that Google ignored them. The only useful stuff that comes out of most big news conglomerates are just republished AP articles. The news companies really just exist to curate the news so that you don't have to see anything that might upset you and to editori

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by GoJays ( 1793832 )

              The news companies really just exist to curate the news so that you don't have to see anything that might upset you and to editorialize the news so that you don't even need to spend the time to figure how you feel about any of it.

              I don't know about where you live, but in Canada almost every news article is rage inducing click bait. In the last couple years I have reduced the amount of news I consume because I always ended up feeling worse after reading it.

      • News never left Google. It was only Facebook that decided to enact a Canadian news sharing ban ahead of the deadline.
    • There was/is indeed a problem but the gov decided to make it worse with ludicrous demands and overplaying what tiny leverage they had. In the end it looks like the gov caved to Google's reasonable position and in the process damaged the smallest independent players in the country for nothing. Google was always willing to pony up some cash like they've already done in other countries but it had to be something capped and reasonable.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dskoll ( 99328 )

      Google never blocked anything (it was waiting until the law came into effect.) And now it turns out Google isn't blocking anything and Canadian media are receiving $100M/year. So to me, it seems like the Canadian government got the result it wanted with Google.

      Facebook is a different story, but honestly... I imagine Google drives far more traffic to news sites than Facebook, so who cares if FB blocks news links? It actually makes the FB feed more pleasant.

    • It's doubly redundant when the news source is the CBC, which Canadians have already paid for through taxes. But hey, if you get can get paid twice, why not!

  • Can news is worthless so better make Google pay? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2023 @05:31PM (#64042303) Homepage
    The news companies created an issue where they gutted the value, and then blamed social media companies for stealing the revenue, which is now entire based on ads and clickbait, because they can't monetize the content.

    If we ignore the value problem, have you tried buying a subscription to a newspaper or getting the digital equivalent? Have you visited a news site in Canada and not been hit with 10 videos, 5 ads, and a readable area the size of a cracker? Even if you can get to the news and get rid of the ads, can you participate in the comment section without having your opinion blocked and or deleted?

    If I load up the CBC or Toronto Star, will I see hard hitting interesting news or just mouth / lip service paid to some marginalized group? Will I get facts free from government censorship, or will I have to read staged government talking points about our great leader?

    Really, the only reason the news had any value in recent years, was due to run off from ad revenue on social media. The solution to the problem is to restore value, and make the new intriguing again, instead of having liberalized / right-wing liberalized, and socialized protected feeling safe spaces.

    If news companies want to make money, don't blame Google and Facebook, just become interesting enough that it's worthwhile.

    • What do you mean interesting enough? It's news, journalism, not punditry. The talking heads are doing just fine. We need less of them though, and more journalism

      • Far too much of the news is based on feelings, social nonsense, racial nonexistent issues, stuff like that. How many articles do you read and think “Woah”? How many do you read and think “This is nonsense”? Hell, even the errors are getting out of control, where they'll make an outright false statement and ignore it, then carry on.

        At this point, hire 5-year-olds to talk about “nap time”, and it will be more hard hitting than much of what we get “treated

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by dskoll ( 99328 )

          Settle down, Rupert.

          • Why? If journalism and news stations want money, they should be self-funding, and not stealing from successful companies. My point still holds that the news isn't worth paying for in Canada.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dskoll ( 99328 )

      I subscribe to The Globe and Mail. I don't see ads on there. The site works quite well and the comment section is just fine.

      • View the Globes site using a mobile browser or having your user agent set to mobile, on my computer it's full of ad, including fake ads, about how Meta caused the revenue decline of the Globe. The Toronto Star, and CBC have the same issue, and right now I'm on Fedora 39, Gnome 45 (Wayland), Firefox 120.0. I'm sure that doesn't make a huge difference, but that's my setup.

    • If I load up the CBC or Toronto Star, will I see hard hitting interesting news or just mouth / lip service paid to some marginalized group? Will I get facts free from government censorship, or will I have to read staged government talking points about our great leader?

      Really, the only reason the news had any value in recent years, was due to run off from ad revenue on social media. The solution to the problem is to restore value, and make the new intriguing again, instead of having liberalized / right-wing liberalized, and socialized protected feeling safe spaces.

      If news companies want to make money, don't blame Google and Facebook, just become interesting enough that it's worthwhile.

      So basically you want the news to cater to your political preferences?

      I'm from Alberta, my Premier is a moronic [www.cbc.ca] loon [globalnews.ca] who can barely go a week without embarrassing the province.

      So what's your idea of news? Something that pretends Danielle Smith is competent and understands which country she's elected in [globalnews.ca]?

      And that's not even touching things like her blowing up the healthcare system in multiple ways, announcing a moratorium on renewable power for a made up reason, etc, etc, etc.

      Yes, there's problems with some s

      • I completely disagree, the safe space is on the left, where we're actually questioning if a kid should be able to change genders and identities like clothing. On the CBC site right now ~7:56 EDT.

        1. Islam is great, let's kiss the ass of Islam.
        2. Misleading article about AI.
        3. Native fashion designs, we should all care (why?).
        4. Misleading and poorly written article about tracking.
        5. Article about kissing the RCMP's ass.
        6. Misleading COVID-19 article, also poorly written.

        Should I keep going? I just p
        • This Isreal/Hamas prisoner exchange article (https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hamas-israel-hostages-prisoners-wednesday-1.7043716) and the take you got from it is "Islam is great, lets all kiss the ass of Islam". You're fucked in the head buddy.
          • How many times has CBC called out Hamas and any Hamas / Palestine supporters as Terrorists? How many times has CBC called out innocent truckers as Terrorists? Notice how CBC will never call out Islam / pro terrorist Islamic factions, why?

            Just to be clear, why I said “Kissing the ass of Islam”

            — Innocent Truckers — Terrorists
            — Literal Terrorists, if they celebrate Islam — Misunderstood community who needs support.

            In fact, you can justifiably extend that to ask wh

        • I completely disagree, the safe space is on the left, where we're actually questioning if a kid should be able to change genders and identities like clothing. On the CBC site right now ~7:56 EDT.

          I don't see that article, but maybe you're talking about this one on transphobia [www.cbc.ca]? There's some legitimate debate on how to treat transgender children and I if you don't like transgender I can see you disliking the default tone of acceptance and disapproval of the US inspired anti-trans protests reaching Canada.

          1. Islam is great, let's kiss the ass of Islam.

          That article the other poster put up (a reprint of an AP article) is not that.

          And you think a news org should be bashing a religion?

          Btw, I don't know how the CBC refers to Hamas, but I don't recall t

          • CBC has in the past and still refers to the Truckers as “terrorists”, but, has never called out Hamas, or Hamas Allies in the same way. CBC (or any other news company) has never said anything like: “Any pro Hamas or pro Palestine demonstrations / protests are nothing more than terrorists and terrorist supporters being backed by international antisemitism”. That's a really important distinction they need to be stating, because if you're going to call a bunch of democracy respecting

            • CBC has in the past and still refers to the Truckers as “terrorists”

              And yet I haven't been able to find that.

              , but, has never called out Hamas, or Hamas Allies in the same way.

              It's not their business to go about labelling groups terrorists [www.cbc.ca].

              CBC (or any other news company) has never said anything like: “Any pro Hamas or pro Palestine demonstrations / protests are nothing more than terrorists and terrorist supporters being backed by international antisemitism”.

              Of course not, because they'd be lying. I mean, look the statement you just suggested: pro Palestine demonstrations are nothing more than terrorists and terrorist supporters .

              Supporting Palestinians is terrorism?!?

              Israel is pushing Palestinians off their land in the West Bank, do you think that anyone supporting Israel is automatically supporting ethnic cleansing?

              People can, and regularly do, protest i

              • You're right, 100%, I didn't post an article where CBC called the Truckers terrorists, so I will find one, because I've seen a few. I never said being “pro Palestine” is being a terrorist supporter, what I said was being pro Hamas / Pro Palestine is an act of terrorism support. If you support the actions being done by Hamas and use that to support your pro Paletine views, then you're supporting terrorism.

                If Hamas / Palestine groups start taking women and children off the streets, and you sho

                • You're right, 100%, I didn't post an article where CBC called the Truckers terrorists, so I will find one, because I've seen a few.

                  Ok, because if you do that would directly contradict that article I posted earlier where CBC expressly avoided calling groups terrorist.

                  Personally, I suspect you'll find your memory isn't accurate in this case, which is actually pretty common (you hear ppl call truckers terrorists, maybe even while being interviewed on CBC, and that morphs into the CBC reporter calling them terrorists).

                  I never said being “pro Palestine” is being a terrorist supporter, what I said was being pro Hamas / Pro Palestine is an act of terrorism support. If you support the actions being done by Hamas and use that to support your pro Paletine views, then you're supporting terrorism.

                  You never said? I literally quoted you:
                  “Any pro Hamas or pro Palestine demonstrations / protests are nothing more tha

                  • I can't find the articles that I claimed exist, so that's on me, I can't defend my claim. However, that doesn't change my point that CBC, or any news agency should call out terrorism for what it is, and label terrorist groups and demonstrations.

                    I was paraphrasing what I said, so I'll quote what you quoted from me:

                    “Any pro Hamas or pro Palestine demonstrations / protests are nothing more than terrorists and terrorist supporters being backed by international antisemitism”.

                    The “or” in that context is meant to apply to the Palestine support following the Hamas terrorism, because in most other contexts it wouldn't matter. For instance, if I said

                    • I can't find the articles that I claimed exist, so that's on me, I can't defend my claim. However, that doesn't change my point that CBC, or any news agency should call out terrorism for what it is, and label terrorist groups and demonstrations.

                      It's not the business of news orgs to call out anything.

                      I think their actual policy makes more sense, unless it's something like Al Queda (everyone agrees they're terrorists) they don't call them terrorists. Though they do report when governments label them terrorists.

                      I was paraphrasing what I said, so I'll quote what you quoted from me:

                      “Any pro Hamas or pro Palestine demonstrations / protests are nothing more than terrorists and terrorist supporters being backed by international antisemitism”.

                      The “or” in that context is meant to apply to the Palestine support following the Hamas terrorism, because in most other contexts it wouldn't matter.

                      The other part of that context is Palestine support following Israel's promise of retribution. Why do you get to decide the protesters are reacting to the context of terrorism and not the context of Palestinian civilians about to be killed?

                      Again, if a bully punches you repeatedly, for years, or even centuries, and you strike back, that's on the bully. Should I bring up the Dome of the Rock? It was built on the holiest site in Judaism, purely as an F you to the Jews, which under Islam are enemies to be killed.

                      It

  • Not sure why Facebook and Google thought they could get away with copying news for free and profiting from it. Maybe they just got so used to doing that and didn't like their freebie taken away. If they paid their reasonable share of corporate tax, maybe there would be a scintilla of sympathy.

    When we did this in Australia there was the predictable howls of outrage from them, and iirc FB blocked news for a few days in a perfunctory protest.

    Hopefully more countries will be inspired to do the same.

    • They didn't copy anything, only gave a summary and hyper link.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        so they scraped the meaningful content, removed the ads funding the people that actually sourced the content, then served it up with their own ads instead...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Not sure why Facebook and Google thought they could get away with copying news for free and profiting from it. Maybe they just got so used to doing that and didn't like their freebie taken away. If they paid their reasonable share of corporate tax, maybe there would be a scintilla of sympathy.

      When we did this in Australia there was the predictable howls of outrage from them, and iirc FB blocked news for a few days in a perfunctory protest.

      Hopefully more countries will be inspired to do the same.

      So they made the same mistake as Australia and then suffered the consequences.

      Fortunately, Canada isn't kowtowing to the Murdoch regime.

      Basically, for anyone who isn't a Murdoch simp, like Canada, Australia passed a rent seeking law that stated anyone linking to news stories from Australian sources had to pay. So Google et at. just stopped linking to them. Murdoch is far too foolish to admit the loss in traffic is due to this, hopefully Canada isn't as dumb.

  • Lets just hope ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Big Bipper ( 1120937 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2023 @05:50PM (#64042353)
    Lets just hope that a lot of that money goes to ( real ) local news sources, and not just to the big conglomerates ( and their lobbyists ), that either just reshuffle stories from other sources, make up and spread mis and dis-information upon request, or simply fill their ever shrinking pages with pablum and adds. Just compare a major newspaper from only twenty years ago to the same paper today. Over twice the pages, twice the size, not just full of adds, and with stories long enough to include background information and facts. Facts, not opinions. It seems that only the few surviving local newspapers ( and some independent TV stations where they still exist ) can still call themselves journalists.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by 0xG ( 712423 )

      More money for the CBC "yay".
      And you can bet CTV, Rogers, Bell et al will have their hands out.
      Local news ousources will get $1.49

  • A simple solution is to tell google to not link to your "news" site.
  • ....Google gave in. Should have held out continuing to tell the Canadian govt "no"

  • According to Michael Geist, this is a *single* payment.
    So it obviously won't create a sustainable news industry.

    More like a shakedown...

    • this is a *single* payment

      Until the next shakedown. The problem is that Google just set a precedent that they're willing to pay for the "privilege" of driving traffic to news sites. There's blood in the water and soon there will be many more sharks looking to feed.

      I can't imagine Google benefits much from offering news in the first place. They may be able to glean some insight into the user, but in the grand scheme of how much data they collect, is the total cost this precedent will bring about worth

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

Close