CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) & Bill C-18

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
22,562
7,568
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Where to Start? It describes itself in this manner: We are dedicated to ensuring that Canadians have access to a world-class communication system that promotes innovation and enriches their lives. Our role is to implement the laws and regulations set by Parliamentarians who create legislation and departments that set policies. We regulate and supervise broadcasting and telecommunications in the public interest.

Wikipedia describes it this way: The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC; French: Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes) is a public organization in Canada with mandate as a regulatory agency for broadcasting and telecommunications. It was created in 1976 when it took over responsibility for regulating telecommunication carriers. Prior to 1976, it was known as the Canadian Radio and Television Commission, which was established in 1968 by the Parliament of Canada to replace the Board of Broadcast Governors. Its headquarters is located in the Central Building (Édifice central) of Les Terrasses de la Chaudière in Gatineau, Quebec.

The CRTC regulates all Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications activities and enforces rules it creates to carry out the policies assigned to it; the best-known of these is probably the Canadian content rules.

Which leads to today, and some of the diversity and C-11 proposals that are coming down the pipe.

The “modern approach” to broadcasting regulation, according to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), involves ordering broadcasters to budget and produce content with diversity quotas in mind, while mandating that various groups of people be consulted every two years.

The CRTC first looked to impose the mandated diversity model onto the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with an update to its broadcasting licence. Now, the Department of Canadian Heritage is laying the groundwork for similar requirements for services like Netflix and Apple TV+ in draft regulations on broadcasting policy under the Online Streaming Act. Consultations are open until July 25, and the finalized regulations will presumably be published sometime after that.

Under the mandated diversity model, the CRTC required the CBC to dedicate 30 per cent of its spending on independent English programming (commissioned television shows and documentaries) to go to producers who self-identify as Indigenous, official language minorities, visible minorities, disabled or LGBT. This mandate is intended to take effect later this year and increase to 35 per cent in 2026.

The CRTC is also mandating the tracking of employee demographics and periodic consultations with equity-seeking identity groups. If you want your interests represented at the diversity table, you’ll have to be a member of one of the target groups.

It should be noted that Canadian Heritage referred the matter of CBC’s broadcasting licence back to the CRTC for reconsideration last September, which means the CBC’s licence conditions on diversity could ultimately end up being rescinded or altered. (In the interim, the CBC has to abide by the CRTC’s original orders.)

That seems unlikely, however, given that Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez is now building the scaffolding to impose CBC-style diversity requirements onto Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+ and others.

The draft regulations would require the CRTC to consider demographic data when setting expenditure requirements for broadcasters, “including data concerning the participation of Black and other racialized persons in the Canadian broadcasting system.” They would also require the CRTC to ensure spending requirements are made to support content creation by Indigenous, Black and other equity-seeking creators.

Indigenous spending mandates would need to consider “the importance of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and the challenges and obstacles that they face, including those stemming from historical injustices or the legacies of colonialism.”

Spending mandates for other equity-seekers (Black, LGBT and so on) would need to consider “the challenges and obstacles that they face, including systemic racism and the obstacles faced by those whose first language is not an official language.”

Now, admittedly, I watch about five hours of actual programming TV per year, usually CNN during a hurricane, etc…& the rest of the time it’s YouTube or Netflix or Prime, etc…so I can “Choose” what I wish to watch, and when I “Choose” to watch it.

The CRTC’s analysis included the following findings: that Indigenous peoples made up five per cent of the Canadian population, visible minorities made up 22 per cent, disabled people constituted 22.3 per cent and that LGBT people could make up between from 1.7 and five per cent of the population.

“In the commission’s view, these percentages provide useful guidance on potential overall requirements relating to expenditures on independent productions from Indigenous peoples and the various equity-seeking communities that could at least ensure some measure of proportional representation,” wrote the CRTC in June 2022, before translating the stats into a diversity requirement for CBC’s budget.

And there’s the problem: storytelling and content creation is slowly becoming a matter of state-enforced, identity-based proportional representation, when it should be a matter for creative directors and the free market to decide.

It’s unnecessary — K-dramas and Bollywood movies are already easy to find — and it goes against the spirit of what Canada should be. Canada is a place of individual freedoms, and consequently shouldn’t be a society that cultivates identity blocs dependent on various race-based and sex-based benefits.

Canadian Heritage’s draft regulations for online streaming would also impose a requirement on the CRTC to consult with “equity-seeking” groups about regulating the broadcasting sector generally. The department included the following on a list of equity-seeking groups: Indigenous people, Black people, other non-white people, “Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds,” official language minority communities, disabled people, LGBT people and women. This is yet another example of the cultivation of identity blocs that get special treatment by the state.

There is also a tentative reporting requirement, which would have the CRTC publish its progress on diversity, equity and inclusion.

What are your opinions on the usefulness of the CRTC sin today’s today? Is it even necessary?
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Taxslave2

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
22,562
7,568
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
The CBC model requires consultations with equity-seeking groups every two years, to help the network fill its new diversity quotas, while giving it a better understanding of how to create “relevant and reflective” content. The CRTC also told the CBC that if potential changes to its journalistic standards were to be contemplated, the broadcaster should first consult with the equity-seeking groups.

It’s one thing for these kinds of diversity mandates to apply to the CBC — I don’t agree with them, but at least it’s just one broadcaster, and a Crown corporation at that. Private broadcasters, on the other hand, should always maintain the freedom to produce whatever and contract with whomever they want. The feds want to encroach on that freedom to ensure that all broadcasters (streaming giants included) adhere to the state’s preferred version of diversity.

Perhaps the consultation phase will dissuade Rodriguez from enacting these racialist regulations, but it’s unlikely considering his history of ignoring feedback. What’s more likely is that online streamers will simply have identity-based strings attached to their work in Canada.

The perfect, law-abiding identity palette will be available to each streaming service subscriber, and the minister will maintain that he never tampered with any algorithms — he just tampered with streamers’ multi-million dollar budgets.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
10,607
5,250
113
Olympus Mons
If they wanna boss the CBC around that's one thing. But telling private enterprise that they have to conform to some arbitrary diversity bullshit is some fucking serious govt overreach and it needs to stop. But, it takes a remarkable sense of stupidity and hubris to tell non-Canadian entities that they have to go along with this shit. Canada isn't a particularly large market. The steaming services could drop Canada like a hot potato and it would have little negative effect on their bottom line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
22,562
7,568
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
If they wanna boss the CBC around that's one thing. But telling private enterprise that they have to conform to some arbitrary diversity bullshit is some fucking serious govt overreach and it needs to stop. But, it takes a remarkable sense of stupidity and hubris to tell non-Canadian entities that they have to go along with this shit. Canada isn't a particularly large market. The steaming services could drop Canada like a hot potato and it would have little negative effect on their bottom line.
The CBC, as a Crown Corporation, gets a Billion Dollars annually from the taxpayers through the Federal Government whether it’s watched or not by anyone. Not so much from the other broadcasters or streaming services.

Canadians would all have to have VPN’s to watch streaming services, pretending to be in other countries, and how would the CRTC or the Liberal Heritage Minister impose their will on that (?) while still close to nobody would still be watching the CBC.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
10,607
5,250
113
Olympus Mons
The CBC, as a Crown Corporation, gets a Billion Dollars annually from the taxpayers through the Federal Government whether it’s watched or not by anyone. Not so much from the other broadcasters or streaming services.

Canadians would all have to have VPN’s to watch streaming services, pretending to be in other countries, and how would the CRTC or the Liberal Heritage Minister impose their will on that (?) while still close to nobody would still be watching the CBC.
This govt would probably end up banning the use of VPN's for the average citizen.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
22,562
7,568
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Bill C-18 received royal assent and officially became law after clearing the Senate in a final vote Thursday afternoon. But that doesn’t mark the moment the bill comes into effect: that’s a process that could take six months — and possibly longer — as the regulations surrounding the legislation are nailed down. Meta Canada has only said it will move forward with its threat at some point before that time period elapses. The company will also “keep Canadians informed of changes” to its services before the platform officially pulls the trigger, so it’s not yet known what the ban will look like for users logging on to Facebook or Instagram.

Meta’s move is in retaliation to a bill the Liberal government has called an effort to revive a journalism industry it says has been hurt by tech titans’ domination of the digital advertising market.

The bill would compel platforms like Meta and Google — which share, preview and direct users to online news content — to strike deals with the media publishers behind those stories, and face financial penalties if they don’t. A number of news publishers (including Torstar, which publishes the Toronto Star) have lobbied Ottawa regarding the bill, and already have deals in place with both companies for the sharing and repurposing of their content.

“Facebook knows very well that they have no obligations under the act right now. Following Royal Assent of Bill C-18, the government will engage in a regulatory and implementation process. If the government can’t stand up for Canadians against tech giants, who will?” Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez said in a statement.

Both platforms have long opposed the bill, arguing that they are being unfairly forced into deals for driving traffic to online news outlets and generating key revenue for publishers.

“We estimate that Facebook Feed sent Canadian publishers more than 1.9 billion clicks in the last 12 months, free marketing worth more than $230 million in estimated value,” Meta Canada’s head of public policy Rachel Curran told senators studying the bill back in May.

Meta, Facebook and Instagram’s parent company, is making good on its threat to block news sharing on both platforms across Canada in response to Ottawa’s online news bill, which became law late Thursday.

“Today, we are confirming that news availability will be ended on Facebook and Instagram for all users in Canada prior to the Online News Act (Bill C-18) taking effect,” a blog post from the web giant notes.

“We have repeatedly shared that in order to comply with Bill C-18, passed today in Parliament, content from news outlets, including news publishers and broadcasters, will no longer be available to people accessing our platforms in Canada.”
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,492
10,941
113
Low Earth Orbit
Bill C-18 received royal assent and officially became law after clearing the Senate in a final vote Thursday afternoon. But that doesn’t mark the moment the bill comes into effect: that’s a process that could take six months — and possibly longer — as the regulations surrounding the legislation are nailed down. Meta Canada has only said it will move forward with its threat at some point before that time period elapses. The company will also “keep Canadians informed of changes” to its services before the platform officially pulls the trigger, so it’s not yet known what the ban will look like for users logging on to Facebook or Instagram.

Meta’s move is in retaliation to a bill the Liberal government has called an effort to revive a journalism industry it says has been hurt by tech titans’ domination of the digital advertising market.

The bill would compel platforms like Meta and Google — which share, preview and direct users to online news content — to strike deals with the media publishers behind those stories, and face financial penalties if they don’t. A number of news publishers (including Torstar, which publishes the Toronto Star) have lobbied Ottawa regarding the bill, and already have deals in place with both companies for the sharing and repurposing of their content.

“Facebook knows very well that they have no obligations under the act right now. Following Royal Assent of Bill C-18, the government will engage in a regulatory and implementation process. If the government can’t stand up for Canadians against tech giants, who will?” Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez said in a statement.

Both platforms have long opposed the bill, arguing that they are being unfairly forced into deals for driving traffic to online news outlets and generating key revenue for publishers.

“We estimate that Facebook Feed sent Canadian publishers more than 1.9 billion clicks in the last 12 months, free marketing worth more than $230 million in estimated value,” Meta Canada’s head of public policy Rachel Curran told senators studying the bill back in May.

Meta, Facebook and Instagram’s parent company, is making good on its threat to block news sharing on both platforms across Canada in response to Ottawa’s online news bill, which became law late Thursday.

“Today, we are confirming that news availability will be ended on Facebook and Instagram for all users in Canada prior to the Online News Act (Bill C-18) taking effect,” a blog post from the web giant notes.

“We have repeatedly shared that in order to comply with Bill C-18, passed today in Parliament, content from news outlets, including news publishers and broadcasters, will no longer be available to people accessing our platforms in Canada.”
Well, there goes another white privilege.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dixie Cup

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
10,607
5,250
113
Olympus Mons
What a fucking wank. Basically the govt wants sites like Meta and Google to PAY Canadian news orgs for providing them access to a global audience. Am I the only one who thinks if anything, it should be the other way around?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,317
6,922
113
Washington DC
What a fucking wank. Basically the govt wants sites like Meta and Google to PAY Canadian news orgs for providing them access to a global audience. Am I the only one who thinks if anything, it should be the other way around?
That's how it was in the early days of cable networks like ESPN. They had to pay the cable companies to carry them. Now they charge cable companies to carry them.

Usually carriers pay content providers.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
22,562
7,568
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Facebook said Friday that tinkering with the Online News Act through regulations would not be enough to stop it blocking access to news in Canada, but people in the United States, Britain and other countries would still be able to read Canadian stories on the platform.

Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, said this week that it plans to follow through with its threat to end millions of Canadians’ ability to access and share news on both platforms, as Bill C-18 gained royal assent.

But people living outside Canada would not be subject to the same blocks on accessing or sharing news as people living here, Facebook said. When the restrictions take effect, Canadian news outlets would still be able to post links and content on the platform, but some would not be viewable in Canada.
…Canadians would all have to have VPN’s to watch streaming services, pretending to be in other countries, and how would the CRTC or the Liberal Heritage Minister impose their will on that (?) while still close to nobody would still be watching the CBC.
This govt would probably end up banning the use of VPN's for the average citizen.
This would mean that a resident of Niagara Falls in New York would be able to read Facebook posts by Canadian news organizations such as The Globe and Mail, while those living across the border in Niagara Falls, Ont., would not.

Andrew Sullivan, president of the Internet Society, predicted that some tech-savvy Canadians would spoof a location outside Canada, by using a virtual private network (VPN) to suggest their computer or device is located outside the country, so they can continue to access and share news on the platform.

“The real danger of these kinds of narrowly targeted laws is that they tend to encourage a ‘splinternet,’ where the internet works differently depending on where one is,” he said.

“Under C-18, digital news intermediaries have to make deals with news companies or face fines. One obvious way to comply with this law is not to be a digital news intermediary at all, which is precisely what Meta has announced it is doing.” For Canadians anyway…?

Some in Ottawa continued to express hope this week that the government may be able to keep Facebook and Google on board by issuing regulations to address their concerns.

But on Friday Facebook said regulations would not be enough to deter it from blocking Canadians’ access to news on the platform. Both the government and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, can issue regulations on how the act would be implemented.

“Our business decision to end the availability of news in Canada before the bill takes effect, and our timing for implementing that decision, is based on the language of the bill,” Facebook spokeswoman Lisa Laventure told The Globe in a statement. “The regulatory process is not equipped to make changes to the fundamental features of the bill that have always been problematic.”

The basic intent (of C-18) – to make social media and search engines pay newspapers and television networks for the content they use and ads they displace – is arguable, but the method is self-serving for the government. The Liberals will decide which outlets get what revenues, making mainstream media even more dependent on Ottawa.
 

Taxslave2

House Member
Aug 13, 2022
2,540
1,516
113
Where to Start? It describes itself in this manner: We are dedicated to ensuring that Canadians have access to a world-class communication system that promotes innovation and enriches their lives. Our role is to implement the laws and regulations set by Parliamentarians who create legislation and departments that set policies. We regulate and supervise broadcasting and telecommunications in the public interest.

Wikipedia describes it this way: The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC; French: Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes) is a public organization in Canada with mandate as a regulatory agency for broadcasting and telecommunications. It was created in 1976 when it took over responsibility for regulating telecommunication carriers. Prior to 1976, it was known as the Canadian Radio and Television Commission, which was established in 1968 by the Parliament of Canada to replace the Board of Broadcast Governors. Its headquarters is located in the Central Building (Édifice central) of Les Terrasses de la Chaudière in Gatineau, Quebec.

The CRTC regulates all Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications activities and enforces rules it creates to carry out the policies assigned to it; the best-known of these is probably the Canadian content rules.

Which leads to today, and some of the diversity and C-11 proposals that are coming down the pipe.

The “modern approach” to broadcasting regulation, according to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), involves ordering broadcasters to budget and produce content with diversity quotas in mind, while mandating that various groups of people be consulted every two years.

The CRTC first looked to impose the mandated diversity model onto the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with an update to its broadcasting licence. Now, the Department of Canadian Heritage is laying the groundwork for similar requirements for services like Netflix and Apple TV+ in draft regulations on broadcasting policy under the Online Streaming Act. Consultations are open until July 25, and the finalized regulations will presumably be published sometime after that.

Under the mandated diversity model, the CRTC required the CBC to dedicate 30 per cent of its spending on independent English programming (commissioned television shows and documentaries) to go to producers who self-identify as Indigenous, official language minorities, visible minorities, disabled or LGBT. This mandate is intended to take effect later this year and increase to 35 per cent in 2026.

The CRTC is also mandating the tracking of employee demographics and periodic consultations with equity-seeking identity groups. If you want your interests represented at the diversity table, you’ll have to be a member of one of the target groups.

It should be noted that Canadian Heritage referred the matter of CBC’s broadcasting licence back to the CRTC for reconsideration last September, which means the CBC’s licence conditions on diversity could ultimately end up being rescinded or altered. (In the interim, the CBC has to abide by the CRTC’s original orders.)

That seems unlikely, however, given that Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez is now building the scaffolding to impose CBC-style diversity requirements onto Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+ and others.

The draft regulations would require the CRTC to consider demographic data when setting expenditure requirements for broadcasters, “including data concerning the participation of Black and other racialized persons in the Canadian broadcasting system.” They would also require the CRTC to ensure spending requirements are made to support content creation by Indigenous, Black and other equity-seeking creators.

Indigenous spending mandates would need to consider “the importance of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and the challenges and obstacles that they face, including those stemming from historical injustices or the legacies of colonialism.”

Spending mandates for other equity-seekers (Black, LGBT and so on) would need to consider “the challenges and obstacles that they face, including systemic racism and the obstacles faced by those whose first language is not an official language.”

Now, admittedly, I watch about five hours of actual programming TV per year, usually CNN during a hurricane, etc…& the rest of the time it’s YouTube or Netflix or Prime, etc…so I can “Choose” what I wish to watch, and when I “Choose” to watch it.

The CRTC’s analysis included the following findings: that Indigenous peoples made up five per cent of the Canadian population, visible minorities made up 22 per cent, disabled people constituted 22.3 per cent and that LGBT people could make up between from 1.7 and five per cent of the population.

“In the commission’s view, these percentages provide useful guidance on potential overall requirements relating to expenditures on independent productions from Indigenous peoples and the various equity-seeking communities that could at least ensure some measure of proportional representation,” wrote the CRTC in June 2022, before translating the stats into a diversity requirement for CBC’s budget.

And there’s the problem: storytelling and content creation is slowly becoming a matter of state-enforced, identity-based proportional representation, when it should be a matter for creative directors and the free market to decide.

It’s unnecessary — K-dramas and Bollywood movies are already easy to find — and it goes against the spirit of what Canada should be. Canada is a place of individual freedoms, and consequently shouldn’t be a society that cultivates identity blocs dependent on various race-based and sex-based benefits.

Canadian Heritage’s draft regulations for online streaming would also impose a requirement on the CRTC to consult with “equity-seeking” groups about regulating the broadcasting sector generally. The department included the following on a list of equity-seeking groups: Indigenous people, Black people, other non-white people, “Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds,” official language minority communities, disabled people, LGBT people and women. This is yet another example of the cultivation of identity blocs that get special treatment by the state.

There is also a tentative reporting requirement, which would have the CRTC publish its progress on diversity, equity and inclusion.

What are your opinions on the usefulness of the CRTC sin today’s today? Is it even necessary?
I read it as government not only picking winners and losers in the private sector, but also dicktating what is fact according to their dogma. Truth and reality have no place in turdOWE's Canaduh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
26,453
6,864
113
B.C.
I read it as government not only picking winners and losers in the private sector, but also dicktating what is fact according to their dogma. Truth and reality have no place in turdOWE's Canaduh.
Best not question government policy , they are benevolent after all . Now go take transit to the market for your daily quota of dried grasshopper . Peasants these days , must be reminded of their place .
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
22,562
7,568
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
I read it as government not only picking winners and losers in the private sector, but also dicktating what is fact according to their dogma. Truth and reality have no place in turdOWE's Canaduh.
OTTAWA — While the Liberal government has said it is in discussions with both Meta and Google on new legislation that the companies have said will lead them to block news from their platforms in Canada, Meta has said it’s not negotiating.

“There are no negotiations currently,” Rachel Curran, head of public policy for Meta Canada, said during an interview on CBC’s Power and Politics Tuesday.

Curran said “the way the bill is drafted doesn’t allow for negotiations outside the framework of the legislation,” and the company is sticking with its plans to block news content on its Facebook and Instagram platforms.

“We are proceeding towards ending the availability of news permanently in Canada. We wish we weren’t here, but we are here, and there is really nothing at this point that’s going to alter that trajectory.”

Bill C-18, the Online News Act, received royal assent last week. The law would force Meta and Google to reach commercial deals with news publishers, to share revenues for news stories that appear on their platforms (Postmedia, publisher of the National Post, is in favour of the legislation). Removing news from their platforms would mean Google and Meta would no longer be subject to the legislation.

Curran said now that the legislation is in place, there is nothing that can be done to address the company’s concerns, “which is that it requires us to compensate these publishers for placing material on our platforms voluntarily, because they get a tremendous amount of free marketing and distribution value from that.”
She said “the regulation-making process can’t alter the fundamental premise or the sort of underlying structure of the bill.”

Curran said the only way Meta would reconsider is if the government amends or repeals the act. “It’s open to the government to do that … But that requires taking any amendments through Parliament,” she said. “Perhaps they’d be willing to do that in the fall.”

Google, which has said it’s considering also pulling news from Google Search and its other platforms in Canada, has confirmed it’s in talks with the government. A Google source told the National Post on Friday that when Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez contacted Google on Thursday, the company was hours from having to decide if it would immediately suspend all links to Canadian news on its products in Canada.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,492
10,941
113
Low Earth Orbit
OTTAWA — While the Liberal government has said it is in discussions with both Meta and Google on new legislation that the companies have said will lead them to block news from their platforms in Canada, Meta has said it’s not negotiating.

“There are no negotiations currently,” Rachel Curran, head of public policy for Meta Canada, said during an interview on CBC’s Power and Politics Tuesday.

Curran said “the way the bill is drafted doesn’t allow for negotiations outside the framework of the legislation,” and the company is sticking with its plans to block news content on its Facebook and Instagram platforms.

“We are proceeding towards ending the availability of news permanently in Canada. We wish we weren’t here, but we are here, and there is really nothing at this point that’s going to alter that trajectory.”

Bill C-18, the Online News Act, received royal assent last week. The law would force Meta and Google to reach commercial deals with news publishers, to share revenues for news stories that appear on their platforms (Postmedia, publisher of the National Post, is in favour of the legislation). Removing news from their platforms would mean Google and Meta would no longer be subject to the legislation.

Curran said now that the legislation is in place, there is nothing that can be done to address the company’s concerns, “which is that it requires us to compensate these publishers for placing material on our platforms voluntarily, because they get a tremendous amount of free marketing and distribution value from that.”
She said “the regulation-making process can’t alter the fundamental premise or the sort of underlying structure of the bill.”

Curran said the only way Meta would reconsider is if the government amends or repeals the act. “It’s open to the government to do that … But that requires taking any amendments through Parliament,” she said. “Perhaps they’d be willing to do that in the fall.”

Google, which has said it’s considering also pulling news from Google Search and its other platforms in Canada, has confirmed it’s in talks with the government. A Google source told the National Post on Friday that when Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez contacted Google on Thursday, the company was hours from having to decide if it would immediately suspend all links to Canadian news on its products in Canada.
Well that worked in Canada's favour. Good job.