> The primary component of Bill C-18 is a provision that *allows an eligible news business (acting alone or in a group) to initiate mandatory bargaining* with a digital news intermediary—an online communications platform (such as a search engine or social media service, excluding platforms whose primary purpose is to allow users to communicate with each other privately) that reproduces news content in whole or in part, or otherwise facilitates access to it by any means—if it is determined that there is a "significant bargaining power imbalance" between the intermediary's operator and the news business (based on size, strategic advantages, and whether they hold a "prominent market position")
Those who qualify as "news businesses" and are eligible to impose mandatory purchase of their news products, will have government-mandated carriage on social media platforms operating in Canada. Their news and stories will reach much further and with more spread, than those who do not qualify or participate.
In practice it benefits the major corporations like Rogers and Bell Media, and will not likely be of benefit to your local town newsletter, or someone trying to blow a whistle on the government. Unless it's a qualified "news business" as defined in the act, that content is now required to be de-emphasized, so you and I are less likely to see it.
Political censorship is not the intent of C-18, nor is it likely a consequence. (The real point of it is to subsidize the ailing major media corporations in Canada.) But when you start picking which messages will be amplified, you are implicitly turning down the volume on other messages, and it is, I think, by the broadest definition, a type of censorship.
It is just whoever the CRTC/Heritage Minister deems to be a Digital News Intermediary. If designated then these companies will have to pay to use links pointing to large media companies in Canada. The price will be determined either through negotiation or forced arbitration, but regardless Bill C-18 is a tax on news links in Canada. The effect of which is of course censorship even if it's not targeted but instead content-neutral. This will hurt the smaller publishers more than the larger publishers (who are actively getting monetary compensation) and so Bill C-18 effectively censors small news media in Canada.
If anyone is wondering the criteria for being deemed a Digital News Intermediary, there are two requirements: 1. a platform must be in a position of a “significant bargaining imbalance” between themselves and the news businesses. This is determined by the CTRC / Heritage Minister and is based on several factors (outlined in section 6 of the bill): e.g. "whether such an imbalance exists, including the size of the platform, whether the market gives the platform a strategic advantage, and if the platform occupies a prominent market position. According to Rodriguez (the Heritage Minister), only two platforms meet this standard: Google and Meta. This is why platforms such as Microsoft (with Bing and LinkedIn), Twitter, and Apple are not subject to the law even though they feature news links. 2. The second requirement is that the digital news intermediary must make news available content available to persons in Canada. If the platform does not make news content available, it is not a digital news intermediary.
Those who qualify as "news businesses" and are eligible to impose mandatory purchase of their news products, will have government-mandated carriage on social media platforms operating in Canada. Their news and stories will reach much further and with more spread, than those who do not qualify or participate.
In practice it benefits the major corporations like Rogers and Bell Media, and will not likely be of benefit to your local town newsletter, or someone trying to blow a whistle on the government. Unless it's a qualified "news business" as defined in the act, that content is now required to be de-emphasized, so you and I are less likely to see it.
Political censorship is not the intent of C-18, nor is it likely a consequence. (The real point of it is to subsidize the ailing major media corporations in Canada.) But when you start picking which messages will be amplified, you are implicitly turning down the volume on other messages, and it is, I think, by the broadest definition, a type of censorship.