Google's news-blocking test in Canada a 'terrible mistake', says PM Trudeau

[ThatRobGuy]

Google's news-blocking test in Canada a 'terrible mistake', says PM Trudeau

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Friday it was a "terrible mistake" for Alphabet Inc's Google to block news content in reaction to a government bill that would compel the tech giant to pay publishers in Canada for news content.

www.reuters.com

Google [USN:L4N3530B7 TEXT:"said this week"] it was testing blocking some Canadian users' access to news as a potential response to the Trudeau government's "Online News Act," which is expected to be passed into law.

Trudeau, speaking to reporters in Toronto, said the blocking of news in Canada was an issue "bothering" him.

"It really surprises me that Google has decided that they'd rather prevent Canadians from accessing news than actually paying journalists for the work they do," he said.

Not sure why he's surprised by this. When tech giants were helping filter certain results (in a way that helped his side with regards to certain mandates), they demonstrated that they have a certain level of "blocking power". Did he honestly expect that they could simply pass a law that would compel a private company in another country to supplement the salaries of an industry sector of his own country?

 

[zippy2006]

Not sure why he's surprised by this. When tech giants were helping filter certain results (in a way that helped his side with regards to certain mandates), they demonstrated that they have a certain level of "blocking power". Did he honestly expect that they could simply pass a law that would compel a private company in another country to supplement the salaries of an industry sector of his own country?

Trudeau isn't the brightest bulb on the tree.

• Trudeau: It will now be illegal for you to disseminate these news sources without paying us.
• Google: Mmmk. We won't disseminate them.
• Trudeau:

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Trudeau isn't the brightest bulb on the tree.

• Trudeau: It will now be illegal for you to disseminate these news sources without paying us.
• Google: Mmmk. We won't disseminate them.
• Trudeau:

At the very least, he should've consulted with the leaders in Australia (who tried to impose a similar legislation package, and it ended with Media outlets having to come to the negotiating table with Google and Facebook). When you're dealing with private platform entities in another country, they can't just pass the law unilaterally and then send a bill to the platform owner.

If I were Google or Meta, I would fight having to pay anything, because it's abundantly clear "who needs who's product more" between online media outlets and Facebook/Google.


That'd be like if I built my own platform that helped software engineers distribute and manage sample code for their own product offering that was like an ad-funded equivalent of GitHub, and some random German tech firms voluntarily decided to use it in order to improve their own reach and capabilities, and then Germany tried to pass a law that said "well, you made some ad revenue off the stuff our nation's tech companies uploaded, so you owe them some money so that they give their employees a raise"

My first instinct would be the same as Google's "well, okay, then you're not going to use it anymore".

Two things could be true for a platform:
"You owe everyone equal, easy access to this"
or
"If you make money off this from people in our country, then you owe some money to the people who opted to use it" (in which I would be justified in just disabling it for that country)

It can't be both.

 

[zippy2006]

At the very least, he should've consulted with the leaders in Australia (who tried to impose a similar legislation package, and it ended with Media outlets having to come to the negotiating table with Google and Facebook). When you're dealing with private platform entities in another country, they can't just pass the law unilaterally and then send a bill to the platform owner.

Well, I think social media companies do need to respect the laws of the countries in which they operate, and they do. Google's decision to test its "blocking" technology is proof that it is willing to abide by the potential Canadian law. But Trudeau contradicts himself with silly rhetoric when he labels it "blocking." If the law is passed and he brings a lawsuit against Google it will necessarily involve construing Google's acts as positively disseminating news without reimbursing the authors, not "failing to block" news stories. Trudeau wants to have it both ways. He wants to castigate Google for "blocking news" when they decide to not-disseminate, and he wants to say that Google's ordinary operations involve more than "not-blocking" so that he can get his money. He is trying to jerk Google around the same way he jerks around his citizens. The guy's a tyrant. If he won't negotiate then he deserves to be "blocked."

If I were Google or Meta, I would fight having to pay anything, because it's abundantly clear "who needs who's product more" between online media outlets and Facebook/Google.

True, but the media outlets probably do deserve a minor share of the earnings, since they also contribute. I am not personally convinced that there is sufficient revenue in a world that depends only on advertising to finance the budget of the older world which was strongly supplemented by subscription fees. Something's gotta give.

That'd be like if I built my own platform that helped software engineers distribute and manage sample code for their own product offering that was like an ad-funded equivalent of GitHub, and some random German tech firms voluntarily decided to use it in order to improve their own reach and capabilities, and then Germany tried to pass a law that said "well, you made some ad revenue off the stuff our nation's tech companies uploaded, so you owe them some money so that they give their employees a raise"

My first instinct would be the same as Google's "well, okay, then you're not going to use it anymore".

It strikes me as a parallel situation to labor unions. The media outlets need to "unionize" if they are to have bargaining power, and apparently some governments are heading up this effort. Not Canada, mind you. Yet.

Two things could be true for a platform:
"You owe everyone equal, easy access to this"
or
"If you make money off this from people in our country, then you owe some money to the people who opted to use it" (in which I would be justified in just disabling it for that country)

It can't be both.

Yes, exactly right. Either Google has a duty to provide service or else they serve on a voluntary basis. If they have a duty then you cannot incriminate them for serving. If they serve on a voluntary basis then you cannot inculpate them for opting out. Trudeau wants to have his cake and eat it, too.

 

[zippy2006]

If I were Google or Meta, I would fight having to pay anything, because it's abundantly clear "who needs who's product more" between online media outlets and Facebook/Google.

It seems like this comes down to the question: Could a search engine's act of indexing and listing the web be in itself an infringement of rights? I don't understand how it could be, and of course there are directives sites can use to prevent search engines from indexing their website.

It would be like if I created my own local Yellowpages for my local hometown, indexing and listing all of the local businesses, with their permission, and then selling the directory. And would I even need permission to disseminate basic information about a public business?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It seems like this comes down to the question: Could a search engine's act of indexing and listing the web be in itself an infringement of rights? I don't understand how it could be, and of course there are directives sites can use to prevent search engines from indexing their website.

It would be like if I created my own local Yellowpages for my local hometown, indexing and listing all of the local businesses, with their permission, and then selling the directory. And would I even need permission to disseminate basic information about a public business?

Any entity that's getting their exposure increased (like what Google and Meta does for people) are already getting more business/traffic than they would without them. I don't see how they could come back with their hand out claiming that those two companies could owe them more.

Whether it be a relatively unknown local news publication or just a restaurant, without Google, they'd get far fewer visitors.

I've been travelling a ton for the past 6 months, I try to hit local restaurants up as much as possible just to have something different. If it weren't for google & google maps, I'd never have even heard of 3/4 of the places I've eaten at (much less find them)... if the restaurant was going back to google saying "Well, hey, Rob finding our place and spending $40 here gave you $0.03 in ad revenue, where's our cut?" that seems like it'd be treading on the line of ungrateful.

Same goes for media outlets in other cities. Thanks to google and meta, I read articles from local outlets all over the country that I never would've even known to look up...their local publications rent out ad space on their own pages.

Their actual beef shouldn't be with google for their loss of revenue, it should be with Ad Blocker software lol.


The could solve a lot of their issues if they just paid an IT guy to implement something like this on their websites:

 

[zippy2006]

...that seems like it'd be treading on the line of ungrateful.

I don't disagree, and yet there are no laws against being ungrateful. I am still wondering if, for the ungrateful people, the legal case holds water.