YES!!! I’ve been arguing this for over a decade as all these media outlets made us bend over backwards to chase the algorithm while hemorrhaging resources
The Liberals had a terrible time getting this legislation passed - I think it took more than a year longer than they thought it would -- and you won't be surprised to know that much of the opposition came from our right-wing politicians and our right-wing national news media. Much of the focus seemed to be a knee-jerk reaction to a bill which would allow the CRTC to define who is a news publishers. Here's a summary of what was being said last fall:
Great writeup. This is totally how I feel about bill C-18 and the online news act. I've been angry at Meta and Google's attempt at bullying Canada into reversing their news, and trying to turn Canadian users of those site against the bill and government. This is not a censoring act like they've portrayed it. It's about ensuring journalism survives in the new online world we live in, and ensuring everyone gets a piece of the cake, not just large companies.
Great article. We might be capable of going directly to local sites, but those sites are going to need to step it up. Theyre so terrible to use! They’re filled with really bad pop ups and banners of chum. The fonts and layout are all weird. I know they don’t have the money to pay for someone to fix this, but it really needs to be done
I have been urging Canadians to support their local (or even national) news orgs directly - to pay for the content. But, yes, the duopoly has made us all the fatties in Wall-E.
Just for the record, the internet impoverishing newspapers began with CraigsList. All CraigsList did was to hoover up papers’ most lucrative advertising.
As for people wanting news, suffice to legacy outlets -- newspapers and TV -- have been providing garbage for over 40 years, at least. The more important the issue, the worst the reporting. I’d dare say whether the establishment media are so harmful as to be a net negative.
Put it this way: today’s post is like the tip of an iceberg. There’s so much more to the problem than tech sucking newspapers dry. Too, there’s papers being bought by private equity.
Excellent analysis, but you miss the big picture - Although Adam Smith himself discussed the issue, modern "neoliberal," "free market fundamentalist," "libertarian," corporate capitalists never discuss or admit the fact that their economic philosophy fails completely to allocate adequate resources to all public goods, except the military, the police, and probably fire departments.
Plus what these companies provide is mostly garbage anyway. My "Google News" feed is just a bunch of reviews (basically ads) for products I have searched for. Microsoft's homepage is mostly tabloid or trashy magazine listcles. And Facebook? I don't even know where to start. Fuck 'em eh.
But I have to ask: why are so many people assuming that companies like Google or Meta have a duty to be "socially valuable"? Legally and ethically, their only duties in a capitalist society are to provide profit to their shareholders, to respect the laws of the land, and to pay their employees fair wages.
If a government feels that it not enough, it can implement laws to extend those duties. But it also has to think about the consequences of such laws.
The proposed Canadian law doesn't --as it absolutely shouldn't in any case-- forbid entities and organization from not linking --not the same thing as blocking-- without paying to content created by other entities. And herein lies the problem. If Google is not allowed to link to an article published by the National Post without paying, will I or some other entity --like a weather network-- be subject to the same restrictions? In the hands of a skilled lawyer, the answer may very well be yes.
The most valuable feature of the public Internet is the ability to freely link to content. Meta is following the word of a law that is contradictory to free linking to content.
There are other ways to save newspapers than to censor the Internet which is what this law does.
This is a GREAT article. I am a big believer in unintended consequences. The second order effects of paying for content will be fabulous I think once the marketplace shakes out. I think what you describe is necessary for the survival of independent journalism. All of this pivots at the confluence of the two major phone platforms. Apple has consciously NEVER offered any content of consequence and merely squatted on the intellectual property of Microsoft and Google and others. If it were for them, our devices would be pretty and shiny and maybe nothing more than expensive. We wouldn't be able to find anything, get anywhere, etcetera. It has worked very well as there are a host of providers with advertising in between. I think the sheer brilliance of their approach, make something beautiful and exclusionary is driving Google and Microsoft to simply ape their behavior at some level with increasing success.
For Microsoft this has been the use of their Office suite as a durable lock that has created cloud dominance. As the unease with advertising grows, Google will NATURALLY shift to paywall its IP. I think a perfect example will be to EXCLUDE the use of an iPhone from using Google Maps, Earth and Waze unless they are will to PAY A SUBSCRIPTION DIRECTLY to Google for such services like search, maps, YouTube, books and the like. Much like an iPhone, if Apple wishes to have the privilege they would need to CHARGE EXTRA in order to skim their no-value fee. This is a good future. People stopped buying maps long ago. Cartographers have been displaced.
When the marketplace is made to PAY for CONTENT it will improve the lot of writers and creators (and device purveyors). The best part of the transition will be the device providers in order to justify their purchase will pay on consumers behalf. In this way the true innovators of content will be reimbursed. It will also improve the lot of Google because half of the rubes on iPhones will be lost all the time and have no semblance of traffic ahead. Google will START with APPLE and merely charge them for the PRIVILEGE of the most popular applications on their precious closed platforms. People like not getting lost. Some people value decent news and being informed. This will be a positive new marketplace. I have every confidence that firms like Apple, Google and Meta will adapt. I think the valuing of IP is a great thing. People like getting their questions answered. It will be a better world wherein makers of DUMB SCREENS pay for the privilege of looking at intellectual property content they have neither the inclination or talent to provide. Substack is a good instance of this. People will pay for reading they wish to see. I pay for Public Radio and a few other subscriptions for that reason. These platforms as they exist today have flourished of course in the reality that 1/2 of adult Americans don't read a single book in a year.
There is still a demand for journalism. It's just that today, that demand is ONLY filled by people going to search engines and either looking at aggregated results, or by searching for specific topics. There is no way around this. People are not going to read daily digest emails sent to their inboxes. They are not going to load aggregator sites that require individual subscriptions from each of the content providers. They are going to only search and read the answers from the searches, or click on links shared by social media friends. It is inconvenient, but there is no other way. Honestly, news creators need to pay someone to drive traffic to their sites, not charge people monthly on the off chance that they want to read one of your articles that day. Just like every other industry that has to pay for customer leads, news should get used to the idea that they are in the same boat as literally every other single content provider in history and they are not somehow special.
YES!!! I’ve been arguing this for over a decade as all these media outlets made us bend over backwards to chase the algorithm while hemorrhaging resources
I really hope Canada doesn’t fold to the bluff, I really hope this happens. I HATE what big tech has done to this profession.
The Liberals had a terrible time getting this legislation passed - I think it took more than a year longer than they thought it would -- and you won't be surprised to know that much of the opposition came from our right-wing politicians and our right-wing national news media. Much of the focus seemed to be a knee-jerk reaction to a bill which would allow the CRTC to define who is a news publishers. Here's a summary of what was being said last fall:
https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/online-news-act-hearings.php
Great writeup. This is totally how I feel about bill C-18 and the online news act. I've been angry at Meta and Google's attempt at bullying Canada into reversing their news, and trying to turn Canadian users of those site against the bill and government. This is not a censoring act like they've portrayed it. It's about ensuring journalism survives in the new online world we live in, and ensuring everyone gets a piece of the cake, not just large companies.
Great article. We might be capable of going directly to local sites, but those sites are going to need to step it up. Theyre so terrible to use! They’re filled with really bad pop ups and banners of chum. The fonts and layout are all weird. I know they don’t have the money to pay for someone to fix this, but it really needs to be done
Remember when Google's motto was "Don't Be Evil"? Good times.
I have been urging Canadians to support their local (or even national) news orgs directly - to pay for the content. But, yes, the duopoly has made us all the fatties in Wall-E.
Well done, Hamilton! I’m sharing widely!
Just for the record, the internet impoverishing newspapers began with CraigsList. All CraigsList did was to hoover up papers’ most lucrative advertising.
As for people wanting news, suffice to legacy outlets -- newspapers and TV -- have been providing garbage for over 40 years, at least. The more important the issue, the worst the reporting. I’d dare say whether the establishment media are so harmful as to be a net negative.
Put it this way: today’s post is like the tip of an iceberg. There’s so much more to the problem than tech sucking newspapers dry. Too, there’s papers being bought by private equity.
Excellent analysis, but you miss the big picture - Although Adam Smith himself discussed the issue, modern "neoliberal," "free market fundamentalist," "libertarian," corporate capitalists never discuss or admit the fact that their economic philosophy fails completely to allocate adequate resources to all public goods, except the military, the police, and probably fire departments.
Plus what these companies provide is mostly garbage anyway. My "Google News" feed is just a bunch of reviews (basically ads) for products I have searched for. Microsoft's homepage is mostly tabloid or trashy magazine listcles. And Facebook? I don't even know where to start. Fuck 'em eh.
There are some very good points here.
But I have to ask: why are so many people assuming that companies like Google or Meta have a duty to be "socially valuable"? Legally and ethically, their only duties in a capitalist society are to provide profit to their shareholders, to respect the laws of the land, and to pay their employees fair wages.
If a government feels that it not enough, it can implement laws to extend those duties. But it also has to think about the consequences of such laws.
The proposed Canadian law doesn't --as it absolutely shouldn't in any case-- forbid entities and organization from not linking --not the same thing as blocking-- without paying to content created by other entities. And herein lies the problem. If Google is not allowed to link to an article published by the National Post without paying, will I or some other entity --like a weather network-- be subject to the same restrictions? In the hands of a skilled lawyer, the answer may very well be yes.
The most valuable feature of the public Internet is the ability to freely link to content. Meta is following the word of a law that is contradictory to free linking to content.
There are other ways to save newspapers than to censor the Internet which is what this law does.
Fuck em.. esp Google... :)
quảng cáo trên google không thực sự hiệu quả như trước nữa.
https://thietkehiendai.vn/
This is a GREAT article. I am a big believer in unintended consequences. The second order effects of paying for content will be fabulous I think once the marketplace shakes out. I think what you describe is necessary for the survival of independent journalism. All of this pivots at the confluence of the two major phone platforms. Apple has consciously NEVER offered any content of consequence and merely squatted on the intellectual property of Microsoft and Google and others. If it were for them, our devices would be pretty and shiny and maybe nothing more than expensive. We wouldn't be able to find anything, get anywhere, etcetera. It has worked very well as there are a host of providers with advertising in between. I think the sheer brilliance of their approach, make something beautiful and exclusionary is driving Google and Microsoft to simply ape their behavior at some level with increasing success.
For Microsoft this has been the use of their Office suite as a durable lock that has created cloud dominance. As the unease with advertising grows, Google will NATURALLY shift to paywall its IP. I think a perfect example will be to EXCLUDE the use of an iPhone from using Google Maps, Earth and Waze unless they are will to PAY A SUBSCRIPTION DIRECTLY to Google for such services like search, maps, YouTube, books and the like. Much like an iPhone, if Apple wishes to have the privilege they would need to CHARGE EXTRA in order to skim their no-value fee. This is a good future. People stopped buying maps long ago. Cartographers have been displaced.
When the marketplace is made to PAY for CONTENT it will improve the lot of writers and creators (and device purveyors). The best part of the transition will be the device providers in order to justify their purchase will pay on consumers behalf. In this way the true innovators of content will be reimbursed. It will also improve the lot of Google because half of the rubes on iPhones will be lost all the time and have no semblance of traffic ahead. Google will START with APPLE and merely charge them for the PRIVILEGE of the most popular applications on their precious closed platforms. People like not getting lost. Some people value decent news and being informed. This will be a positive new marketplace. I have every confidence that firms like Apple, Google and Meta will adapt. I think the valuing of IP is a great thing. People like getting their questions answered. It will be a better world wherein makers of DUMB SCREENS pay for the privilege of looking at intellectual property content they have neither the inclination or talent to provide. Substack is a good instance of this. People will pay for reading they wish to see. I pay for Public Radio and a few other subscriptions for that reason. These platforms as they exist today have flourished of course in the reality that 1/2 of adult Americans don't read a single book in a year.
There is still a demand for journalism. It's just that today, that demand is ONLY filled by people going to search engines and either looking at aggregated results, or by searching for specific topics. There is no way around this. People are not going to read daily digest emails sent to their inboxes. They are not going to load aggregator sites that require individual subscriptions from each of the content providers. They are going to only search and read the answers from the searches, or click on links shared by social media friends. It is inconvenient, but there is no other way. Honestly, news creators need to pay someone to drive traffic to their sites, not charge people monthly on the off chance that they want to read one of your articles that day. Just like every other industry that has to pay for customer leads, news should get used to the idea that they are in the same boat as literally every other single content provider in history and they are not somehow special.