Canadian government reaches deal with Google

Examining the Canadian government's deal with Google over the Online News Act.

Google to pay Canada news publishers $73m a year to keep news in search | The Guardian | Blake Montgomery and agencies:

November 30, 2023 - "Canada and Google have reached a deal to keep links to news stories in search results and for the tech giant to pay $73.6m annually, or C$100m, to news publishers in the country. The deal resolves Alphabet-owned Google’s concerns over Canada’s Online News Act, which seeks to make large internet companies share advertising revenue with news publishers in the country.... The Online News Act, part of a global trend to make internet giants pay for news, passed in June and the government is finalizing rules that are expected to be released by a 19 December deadline..... 

"As part of the agreement with Canada, Google will annually contribute C$100m, indexed to inflation, to news businesses, and the company will have the option to work with a single collective to distribute the funds. Google had previously threatened to block news on its search engine, a major source of traffic for nearly all websites on the internet.... The company said it was concerned it would be exposed to potentially uncapped liability....

"The legislation came after complaints from Canada’s media industry, which wants tighter regulation of tech companies to prevent them from elbowing news businesses out of the online advertising market. Paul Deegan, the chief executive officer of industry body News Media Canada, welcomed the agreement and thanked the government for ensuring cash compensation for publishers. The Canadian Broadcasting Corp broke the news of the deal earlier. 'We commend Google for their good faith, socially responsible approach,' Deegan added in a statement."

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/29/google-canada-online-news-act-agreement-publishers

Google reaches deal with Canada, will compensate news outlets $100 million annually | Global News | November 30, 2023:

The Feds Have Surrendered to Google Over Online News Act. Now What? | Epoch Times | Peter Menzies: 

November 30, 2023 - "Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge, as expected, termed the deal “historic” and insisted there were “absolutely no concessions” on the government’s part. How her nose did not grow at least two feet longer while saying this is quite beyond me. Because the facts of the matter are that for the past two months, the government and the news industry lobbyists who promoted the act (Bill C-18) have been desperately trying to placate Google in order to prevent it from doing what Meta had already done — block news links in Canada.... Google had indicated it would ... unless the government manipulated the regulations supporting Bill C-18 to address its concerns. It ... needed a cap on its financial liability and ... couldn’t possibly comply with the expectation that it engage in what would have been multiple negotiations and arbitrations.... 

"But ... the bureaucrats at Canadian Heritage were able to get the regulations to say what Google needed them to say to agree to disarm and pay the amount of money it was always willing to pay — $100 million. What that means is that the news industry will now form itself into a single collective consisting of broadcasters, legacy print media, digital startups, and assorted others. Who will determine membership and how remains unclear.... The next step for the collective will be defining what roles qualify as 'journalism\ jobs.... That will be necessary because when it comes to dividing up the $100 million, it will be done purely on a per journalism employee basis. (I am assuming this because that is the sort of arrangement Google was looking for and it is relatively non-contentious.)...

"But here’s the rub. Prior to the introduction of the Online News Act, Google already had deals in place with publishers such as the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, Postmedia, and others, including broadcasters. It is extremely likely that the amount of money that once was flowing from Google through those agreements (they are private so we don’t know their value) will now be diverted to the $100 million 'collective' pot. That means the net benefit of St-Onge’s 'historic' deal is probably considerably less than $100 million.... 

"It gets worse. The Online News Act was originally promoted by legacy newspaper publishers — the group hardest hit by the invention of the internet and its plethora of alternative advertising and information platforms. Then the broadcasters, including CBC, muscled their way into the conversation. So now, with the $100 million being divided up on a per-journo basis, guess who has the most journalists? The CBC/Societé Radio Canada of course. Next up is Bellmedia with its TV, radio, and online reporters, probably followed by Rogers. In fact, preliminary estimates were that 75 percent of the cash produced by Bill C-18 would go to broadcasters. That leaves $25 million for the far more financially desperate legacy print publishers who, as noted, already had deals with Google.

"Don’t get me wrong. It is a good thing the government found a way to surrender to Google and avoid the nuclear option of it de-indexing news from its search engine. That would have been catastrophic. But there is no amount of lipstick that can pretty up the Bill C-18 pig."

Read more: https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/peter-menzies-the-feds-have-surrendered-to-google-over-online-news-act-now-what-5538869

Trudeau gov't fast-tracks Online News Act

Canada's Liberal government has adopted an "accelerated" and "aggressive" timetable to roll out enforcement of the Online News Act (Bill C-18), cancelling a promised public consultation process.

Fed gov’t fast-tracks Online News Act, scrapping public input | Western Standard |  Christopher Oldcorn:

September 5, 2023 - "Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge unexpectedly announced that the Online News Act would start being enforced by the end of the year, which skips months of planned public consultations. In a legal notice released on Saturday, St-Onge admitted that the schedule for making these changes was 'aggressive' and 'accelerated.'

"'The Act will come into force on December 19, 2023,' said a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement by St-Onge’s department. 'This aggressive implementation timeline requires the department of Canadian Heritage to seek pre-publication of the regulatory proposal as soon as possible.'  

"On June 22, Parliament passed Bill C-18 the Online News Act.... Bill C-18 requires Google and Facebook to give back some of the money they make from ads on linked news stories to Canadian news organizations. The CRTC, as late as August 24, said it intended to 'launch a public consultation this fall to gather views,' publish draft regulations in the summer of 2024 and begin enforcing the Act as late as 2025.

"'There is going to be a consultation process around regulations,' Minister St-Onge told reporters on August 21. 'Facebook and Google and all the other media and the public are invited to comment on these regulations when they come out.' No explanation was provided for why the Act would be enforced so quickly. 

"On June 23, Facebook started blocking all free links to news stories from Canada to avoid paying for them. On June 29, Google Canada announced it would stop providing free links to news stories. This move collapsed any plans of revenue sharing. 'Bill C-18 has become law and remains unworkable,' the company said in a statement.

"In a technical briefing with reporters on Friday, the department of Canadian Heritage said full compliance would see Google and Facebook pay publishers $234 million a year.... The Budget Office last October 22 in a report Cost Estimate for Bill C-18 put revenue sharing at $329 million. 'Those are estimates,' said Thomas Owen Ripley, associate assistant deputy Heritage minister.

"'How do you compel a company to pay this?' asked a reporter. 'Companies have been vocal about some of their criticisms of the legislation,' replied Ripley. 'As we have seen, there is a question of whether platforms remove themselves entirely from the digital news marketplace to avoid being subject to the Act. The government remains focused through this regulatory process on putting forward what it sees as a reasonable, viable framework.'

"Many independent news organizations spoke against the Online News Act at the Senate Transport and Communications committee. According to the Heritage department, the CBC would benefit the most from this new law."

Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/business/fed-gov-t-fast-tracks-online-news-act-scrapping-public-input/article_1edba2a4-4be7-11ee-8b30-37c5b9a43a06.html

The Online News Act Is Now Law in Canada. But Is the Response From Google and Meta Justified? | The News Forum | August 3, 2023: 

Google to block Canadian news due to Bill C-18

Google becomes the second large online tech giant to announce that it will no longer promote Canadian news sources on its platforms, following passage of the Online News Act (Bill C-18).    

Google to remove news links in Canada in response to online news law | CBC News | John Paul Tasker:

June 29, 2023 - "Google said Thursday it will remove Canadian news content from its search, news and discover products after a new law meant to compensate media outlets comes into force.... The decision comes after the government's contentious C-18 legislation passed Parliament last week. 

"The bill has been criticized by tech giants like Meta and Google who say it's unfair to impose what amounts to a tax on links. Some smaller media outlets and experts have blasted the regime because they claim the bulk of the financial benefits will accrue to a handful of a large media players. 

"'We're disappointed it has come to this. We don't take this decision or its impacts lightly and believe it's important to be transparent with Canadian publishers and our users as early as possible,' said Kent Walker, the president of global affairs at Google and Alphabet. 'The unprecedented decision to put a price on links (a so-called "link tax") creates uncertainty for our products and exposes us to uncapped financial liability simply for facilitating Canadians' access to news from Canadian publishers.'

"The government and larger media outlets, including the newspaper lobby group and broadcasters like the CBC and CTV, have said social media companies should compensate news outlets for the use of their content.

"Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez suggested Thursday he has no intention of backing down.... 'Big tech would rather spend money to change their platforms to block Canadians from accessing good quality and local news instead of paying their fair share to news organizations,' Rodriguez said in a statement....

"Rodriguez added in an interview with CBC News that he was surprised by Google's statement because the government's talks with the company are ongoing. 'We're still having conversations with Google as recent at this morning,' he said. 'Google knows very well that the clarity they need is coming soon through regulation.'

"Just yesterday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the government was confident Google would come around on the legislation."

Read more: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/google-canada-online-news-1.6892879

Google to block access to Canadian news | CBC News | June 29, 2023:

Google lobbies to slow down Canada's Bill C-18

Google warns Ottawa’s Online News Act would ‘break’ its search engine | Globe and Mail - Bill Curry:

May 16, 2022 - "Google is ramping up its opposition to the federal government’s Online News Act, warning the proposed new law would 'break' its popular search engine. Google Canada vice-president and managing director Sabrina Geremia released a detailed criticism of the bill Monday in an online post, stating the bill as currently drafted would likely make Canada’s news industry worse off and would hurt Canadians’ ability to find quality information.

"One of the social-media giant’s biggest concerns is language in the bill that prohibits 'digital news intermediary operators' – a category that would apply to Google and other search engines – from giving 'undue or unreasonable preference' to specific news items. The company argues this language is unclear and puts at risk the core function of Google’s search engine, which is to provide ranked responses to a search query.

"It also states that requiring Google to pay the news organizations that appear in search results amounts to a 'link tax' and could mean consumers receive less information. 'The ability to link freely between websites is fundamental to how the internet works,' Ms. Geremia states. 'Canadians expect that when they search for information, they will have access to ALL the content the internet has to offer. Requiring payment for links risks limiting Canadians’ access to the information they depend on. The Online News Act would break this critical principle of the internet for everyone.'

"Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez introduced Bill C-18, the Online News Act, last month. The goal of the bill is to compel global tech companies such as Facebook and Google to negotiate payment agreements with news organizations as compensation for news content that appears on the large platforms. The legislation is modelled after a similar approach enacted last year in Australia."

Read more: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-google-warns-ottawas-online-news-act-would-break-its-search-engine/

Google Toronto Office. CC 1.0 Public domain, Wikimedia Commons

Google contacts each MP over fast-tracking of online news bill through Commons | CTV News - Marie Woolf, Canadian Press:

June 1, 2022 - "Google has taken the extraordinary step of writing to every MP and senator expressing fears that the online news bill is being rushed through Parliament without proper debate or consideration. In its letter, Google warns that the bill needs more scrutiny because of its implications, including for the way the search engine ranks content and elevates information from 'trusted sources'....

"Google says ... the bill has a very broad definition of 'eligible news businesses' and could mean that 'foreign state-owned outlets could be eligible even if they are known sources of misinformation and propaganda.' The letter also warns that, as currently worded, the bill's 'undue preference' provision may 'prohibit features that elevate information from trusted sources (including government information) or reduce low quality information (including from eligible foreign state media outlets). The breadth of this provision threatens potential liability for any type of ranking or moderation of news content or any action that might have a negative impact on any outlet, even if that outlet is known to produce propaganda or disinformation,' the letter adds....

"The government has fast-tracked the bill through the Commons, reducing the amount of time it is debated on the floor of the House before going into committee for closer scrutiny....Conservative House leader John Brassard accused the government of 'limiting and stifling debate' of the bill by MPs. 'I'm profoundly disappointed they moved a time allocation on such a highly contentious bill that needs significant work,' he said. 'What they are doing is simply bypassing the House of Commons. We only had two hours of debate on C-18 and, as the official Opposition, we only had one speaker.'

"Google spokeswoman Lauren Skelly said: 'Getting this right is much more important than getting it done quickly.' She said Google wrote to MPs and senators because it was important for them to 'know where we stand' and said the bill as currently written was 'deeply flawed.' She added, in a statement, that Google was 'strongly in favour of contributing financially to support a sustainable future for journalism and the news ecosystem in Canada.'"

Read more: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/google-contacts-each-mp-over-fast-tracking-of-online-news-bill-through-commons-1.5928695

Twitter and LinkedIn blocking criticism of China

Make Them Pay | Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) - Edward Lucas: 

July 6, 2021 - "My friend Anne-Marie Brady is one of the world’s top China-watchers. Twitter has just made her invisible. Anyone trying to visit @anne_mariebrady this weekend was stopped by a warning screen. Some recent tweets, mocking the Chinese Communist Party’s centenary, are 'unavailable'. Searches for her draw a blank. She is also locked out of her account. She can no longer post any further tweets, message people — or complain to Twitter.

"This probably results from a concerted campaign by the Chinese Communist Party’s online agents. Enough complaints usually trigger an automated block. The user is left fuming and powerless. In effect, the Chinese Communist Party is extending its control into the heart of a free society.

"A few days earlier, I changed my profile on LinkedIn. It recently warned some prominent critics of the Beijing regime that their user profiles will not be visible in mainland China because they breach local laws.

"I decided to test this. I added some details about my weekly newsletter, the China Influence Monitor. This highlights, I explained, attempts 'to marginalize Taiwan (Republic of China)..,[and]..to erase Tibetan and East Turkestan identity'. I added crisp mentions of the underground church and Tiananmen Square: all the taboo terms I could think of, in fact.

"This worked beautifully. Within hours LinkedIn sent a polite, opaque email. I too was blocked....

"I want to know why LinkedIn, or its owners at Microsoft, started snooping on its users’ choice of language about China. Was it preemptive? Or was the company instructed to do it? If so, who gave the order, when, and in what terms?

"LinkedIn will not say. I passed the story to the London Times. Colleagues there could not get an answer either. Nor could British MPs who happened to be quizzing a Microsoft executive at a parliamentary committee hearing last week....

"These companies enjoy the advantages of a free political and legal system when they express their views and defend their interests. Their intellectual property and contracts are protected by laws made not by bureaucratic fiat but by elected legislators, and enforced by impartial courts. Good luck trying any of that in China or Russia. But these behemoths do not exert themselves to protect the system that enables their success. They prefer convenience, growth, and profit.

"This spells doom for democracy. We rely on emails, websites, search engines, mobile phones, and social media at all levels, from national campaigns to private messaging. But these systems are wide open to attack, be it disruption, fakery, or snooping.... Mischievous and malevolent outsiders can spy on us, distort our perception of reality, and shape our decision-making."

Read more: https://cepa.org/make-them-pay/

Children left behind in USA's return to normal

Will COVID hysterics ever let our children live normal lives? | New York Post - Karol Markowicz

April 11, 2021 - "The end of the pandemic is nigh. Americans continue to get vaccinated at a rapid clip. Life will be moving on. Except, it seems, for children. For more than a year, they have suffered from irrational, unscientific and downright superstitious policies inflicted upon them by adults — and there is no end in sight.

"In March, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ­issued new guidance that three-foot social distancing suffices in schools, instead of the usual six. Yet in many localities where teachers unions wield power, schools still didn’t fully reopen. In New York City, schools have ­reopened on a (very) part-time basis in large part owing to the ­debunked six-foot rule. United Federation of Teachers boss Michael Mulgrew immediately balked at the guidance, calling it 'strange' and saying the union would consult with its own experts. But the real question is: Why do kids even need to socially distance at all?

"Many places in Europe, including Britain, as well as some schools across America, long ago scrapped social-distancing ­requirements for kids. They opened their schools and kept them open. That’s ­because ­research has repeatedly showed that children are at minuscule risk from the disease and also transmit it a much lower rate than do adults.

"We also need to cut it out with the masking of kids. Let’s notice that every video of a 2-year-old being escorted off an airplane for not wearing a mask is set in America. On European flights, masks are required for ages 6 and up.... And while masking 6-year-olds still seems unnecessary and should hopefully end soon, it’s saner than sticking one on a toddler. 

"In November, Maria van Kerkhove, head of the World Health Organization’s emerging-diseases unit, clarified that 'for children under 6 years old, we don’t recommend the use of masks.' This, she said, was 'for many reasons — because of the way children are developing' and because enforcing adherence is a fool’s errand. She added: 'Between 6 [and] 11, we recommend taking a risk-based approach depending on where the children are, the types of activities they are doing.'

"Yet last week, YouTube removed a video of scientists from places like Stanford saying much the same to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. The Google-owned video service called it 'medical misinformation.' This, even though last April, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcocki said her site would interdict 'anything that would go against World Health ­Organization recommendations.' In this case, it’s YouTube itself that was contradicting WHO....

"There is a specific reason ­other developed nations treat children differently than adults, and it seems hard for the coronavirus hysterics to accept: Again, COVID-19 largely doesn’t affect children. 

"Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), caused a stir when he said last August that 'seasonal flu is actually, in many cases, a deadlier virus if [kids] contract that' — a claim that Politifact was forced to rate 'mostly true.' It’s actually completely true, and if this is surprising news, it’s because the CDC, virus guru Dr. Anthony Fauci and the media at large have failed to tell the truth about COVID’s risks to children and the risks of children spreading it to adults."

Read more: https://nypost.com/2021/04/11/will-covid-hysterics-ever-let-our-children-live-normal-lives/ 

PragerU videos viewed a billion times in a year

How PragerU Is Winning The Right-Wing Culture War Without Donald Trump - Joseph Bernstein, Buzzfeed News:

March 3, 2018 - "While it is not an accredited institution of higher learning, Prager University is most definitely an education. Scrolling through its 300-odd videos yields a survey of almost every divisive national issue in the United States today: racism, sexism, income inequality, gun ownership, Islam, immigration, Israel, police brutality, and, of course, speech on college campuses.

"Many of the people presenting these topics are establishment, PBS NewsHour–conservative types like [Bret] Stephens, Charles Krauthammer, and Steve Forbes. But more importantly, PragerU’s faculty includes an all-star lineup of internet and media personalities who have made their bones in the Trump era antagonizing the campus left: Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, James Damore, Steven Crowder, Dinesh D’Souza, Christina Sommers, Adam Carolla, Charlie Kirk, and many more. They are, according to PragerU’s founder and namesake, the conservative talk radio host Dennis Prager, 'the best thinkers presenting their best ideas.” Their goal: to 'undo [the] damage' inflicted by an education system that teaches US students that their country is 'a land of inequality and racism' and a place of which to be 'ashamed.'

"These ideas — each one expressed in a five-minute video with titles like 'Facts Don’t Care About Your Feelings,' 'Black, Millennial, Female and… Conservative,' 'Why I Left the Left' and 'Why Isn’t Communism as Hated as Nazism?' — have found an enormous, and growing, audience. According to PragerU’s annual report, in 2017 the organization’s videos received 625 million views between Facebook and YouTube, up from 250 million the year before, and 75 million the year before that. Individual videos frequently garner more than a million views; at least 10 PragerU videos gained more than 5 million views in 2017, and at least six gained more than 10 million.

Read more: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/prager-university

PragerU Surpasses 2 Billion All-Time Views - PRNewswire:

March 14, 2019 - PragerU recently launched The Candace Owens Show ... garnering millions of views in its first few days. That same week PragerU crossed two billion total views since its founding in 2011. While it took approximately seven years to reach its first billion, PragerU recreated the feat in just over one year, a clear sign of how rapidly the organization has grown....

"While PragerU continues to experience an increasing level of censorship from big tech companies, the organization has recently launched a new mobile app as well as an upgraded website where all of its videos are hosted natively. Through these 'owned' platforms, viewers are guaranteed to be able to watch all PragerU videos without censorship from Google/YouTube and Facebook.

"PragerU, founded by Dennis Prager in 2011, is a not-for-profit online media organization that helps millions understand the values that shaped America and provides millions of people around the world with the intellectual ammunition they need to advocate for limited government, individual responsibility and economic freedom. Since its founding, PragerU videos have received over two billion views. PragerU is a resource for all who value liberty. It is a threat to all those who do not."

Read more: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/prageru-surpasses-2-billion-all-time-views-300812721.html
'via Blog this'

Google cuts anti-Trudeau site from newsfeed

At Trudeau’s behest, Gould instructed Google News to limit Canadian access to foreign press – The Buffalo Chronicle:

March 16, 2019 - "In the days approaching former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould‘s testimony to the House of Commons’ Justice Committee on February 27, at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau‘s behest, Karina Gould, the Minister of Democratic Institutions, reached out to social media giant Google to pressure the firm to curtail political criticism of the Trudeau government on its platform.

"Gould placed a call to a senior government relations executive at Google, during which she complained about ‘hate speech’ and ‘toxic rhetoric’, referring multiple times to specific criticisms of the Trudeau government that she found objectionable. She then threatened sweeping regulations that would require unprecedented disclosures of advertising sponsors.... In response, the firm announced that it will not accept political advertising through the October elections....

"In the days following Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, and just two weeks after Gould told a House committee that there was 'more she was planning to do' to 'limit foreign influence' in the election, The Chronicle noticed that articles published on our digital platform relating to the ongoing SNC Lavalin scandal stopped appearing in Google News search results in Canada.  (Our coverage continues to appear in regular Google search results, and in Google News results in the United States.)

"On the same day as Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, Gould turned to iPolitics to publicly disparage a recent Chronicle report, with defamatory comments from Gould and a PMO spokesman. The author of the piece, Charlie Pinkerton, used a Twitter comment made by an obscure reporter who formerly wrote for Vice, to broadly characterize this publication as ‘fake’ news.

"iPolitics is a subsidiary of Torstar, the publishing giant managed by Frank Iacobucci (in his capacity as a current board member and former Chairman).... Iacobucci is a retired Supreme Court Justice and is at the center of the scandal that is engulfing the Trudeau government.  Iacobucci has been working as SNC Lavalin’s in-house attorney in their effort to secure a deferred prosecution agreement.  He was also appointed by Trudeau to manage the government’s consultations with indigenous people in order to secure approvals for the Trans Mountain Pipeline in British Columbia.

"Michael Wernick, the Clerk of the Privy Council, was the subject of the report that Gould was quick to go to the press in an attempt to discredit.... Wernick also sits as one of five government officials who comprise the newly formed ‘election protection unit’, who have been tasked by the Cabinet to monitor and neutralize ‘critical election incidents’.

"Less than two weeks after the bum iPolitics story, Gould announced that the Trudeau government will include $7 million in this year’s federal budget to monitor and actively discredit political content on social media platforms.... At the same time, the Trudeau government plans to offer Canada’s media giants $600 million in operating subsidies, which has unnerved free speech advocates across all party affiliations."

Read more: https://buffalochronicle.com/2019/03/16/at-trudeaus-behest-gould-instructed-google-news-to-limit-canadian-access-to-foreign-press/
'via Blog this'

Google stops carrying Canadian political ads

Google to ban political ads ahead of federal election, citing new transparency rules - The Globe and Mail - Tom Cardoso:

March 5, 2019 - "Google is banning political advertising on its platforms ahead of the Canadian federal election because of new ad transparency rules it says would be too challenging to comply with.

"The decision comes in response to the Liberals’ signature election measure, Bill C-76, which passed in December. Among other things, it requires online platforms to keep a registry of all political and partisan ads they directly or indirectly publish. The penalties for not doing so include fines and possible jail time.... The bill’s advertising-transparency requirements come into force on June 30, or sooner if an early election is called....

"To enforce its ban, Google will modify its ad policies and systems to block advertisers from running ads that fall under the definitions set out in C-76. Other Google services, such as enhanced search results and platforms including YouTube, will still be available during the campaign period.... Google also expressed concerns about how it would detect ads of a partisan nature, which may not specifically mention a candidate or party by name.

"Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould said the decision was 'very disappointing' in an e-mailed statement. 'Google’s decision to opt out of political advertising during the regulated period appears to have been made for business reasons and does not reflect on the quality of our laws, which are designed to protect Canadian voters and our elections'....

"The internet giant first spoke publicly about C-76 in November. In a presentation to a Senate committee, Google ... included marked up versions of Bill C-76 indicating which sections Google wanted removed or edited. Because of how Google’s advertising systems work, the company argued, it doesn’t know which ads get displayed, making a registry impossible....

"In Google’s system, ads can be targeted to users ... through a real-time bidding process. When users visit a web page, as the page loads their profile is shared with an advertising exchange ... the web page’s publisher then auctions off the ads ... [and] the winning bidder displays an ad to the user. This entire process often lasts less than two tenths of a second.... Google argues the publisher may not know which ads were displayed. Similarly, the advertising exchange itself may not know which ad was shown....

"Google is one of the world’s largest digital-advertising companies.... A study from the Canadian Media Concentration Project estimates that, in 2016, the company accounted for 48 per cent of all internet advertising in Canada, eclipsing Facebook, at 24 per cent."

Read more: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-google-to-ban-political-ads-ahead-of-federal-election-citing-new/
'via Blog this'

Democrats warn Students for Liberty sponsors

Ocasio-Cortez tries to deplatform libertarian students by shaming their funders - The College Fix - Greg Piper:

January 29, 2019 - "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ... turned her wrath on big tech companies last week.... AOC, as she’s popularly known, is mad that they sponsored a libertarian student conference.

"She responded to a report by the progressive magazine Mother Jones that Google donated $25,000, and Facebook and Microsoft $10,000 each, to sponsor Students for Liberty’s LibertyCon. That is unacceptable ... because LibertyCon’s other sponsors include 'three groups known for their work attacking climate change science and trying to undermine efforts to reduce carbon emissions,' including the CO2 Coalition, which ran an exhibit and sponsored a panel discussion on the benefits of carbon dioxide.

"In her Friday letter to the three tech CEOs, jointly written with Maine Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree, Ocasio-Cortez scolded the companies for going off-message by sponsoring a conference 'that included a session denying established science on climate change.... [T]he example you have set promoting sustainability and evidence-based science is compromised by your implicit support of the session organized at LibertyCon,' they wrote.... 'As you are well aware, the spreading of misinformation can be dangerous to our society.'

"Students for Liberty responded ... Tuesday, accusing Ocasio-Cortez and Pingree of [trying] to 'control what dialogue is acceptable within society.... Trying to denormalize Students For Liberty and pressuring our generous sponsors to stop engaging with us at LibertyCon is a common tactic of extremist ideas and actors. Attempting to discredit those who are willing to participate in civil and open discussion across the political spectrum is a tactic to ensure there is only one side represented.'

"CEO Wolf von Laer said the tech companies sponsored the conference 'to participate in our technology policy sessions, not to debate climate change solutions, or the countless other topics covered at LibertyCon'.... The lawmakers should 'engage in productive debates about pragmatic climate change policies rather than using their positions of power to execute a smear campaign,' he said.

Read more: https://www.thecollegefix.com/ocasio-cortez-tries-to-deplatform-libertarian-students-by-shaming-their-funders/
'via Blog this'

In praise of the public domain

by George J. Dance

January 1, 2019 - In Canada, January 1 is Public Domain Day, the day when works of art lose their copyright status and pass into the public domain. "Public domain" means that the art no longer has an owner who can charge (and therefore exclude) those who want to experience it. Physical copies are still owned; but anyone in the country – teacher, humble blogger, or even small press owner – can make their own copies without having to pay royalties for the privilege.

Public Domain Day happens today in the United States, as well, but there it is more momentous. January 1, 2019 is the first Public Domain Day in the U.S. in 20 years, the very first since the rise of the internet.

The concept of a 'public domain' has a long pedigree, reaching back to the Roman legal concepts of res nullus (things that cannot be owned) and res communes (things owned in common). In modern law, though, it is treated as a mere negative: the things to which property law does not apply. The term itself was coined by French poet Alfred de Vigny, who equated the end of a work's copyright with it falling "into the sinkhole of public domain." "Sinkhole" was a good description; For most books, songs and poems, the lack of copyright meant that no one would publish them; a work that fell into the public domain could well and truly disappear.

However, the internet changed all that. Project Gutenberg began putting the literary canon online – Internet Archive began doing the same for the rest of pre-1923 writing – Wikimedia Commons did the same for paintings and music. Today, rather than being lost to us, public domain works are available and freely accessible to billions.  

Simultaneous with the rise of the net in the 1990s, copyright holders began pushing to extend their copyrights. In 1995 the United Kingdom increased its copyright term, from life plus 50 to life plus 70 years. The United States followed suit in 1998 with its own 20-year increase, from 75 to 95 years. The British law was retroactive, declaring works already in the public domain (some already republished) back in copyright (and those published works therefore illegal). However, as the U.S. Constitution forbids ex post facto punishments, Congress had to be content with freezing copyrights for 20 years, effectively banning Public Domain Day for that time.

Canada has been under considerable pressure (most recently with the Trans-Pacific Partnership) to increase its own term. Thankfully, that pressure failed; not least, because such extensions of copyright are indefensible. A libertarian can accept the idea of giving a work's creator the sole right to use and profit from his work, even for life; and adding an extra fixed term insures his dependents against his accidental death. (For example, if a writer dies at 30, Canadian law lets his heirs collect royalties as if he had lived to 80.) But there is no justification for forcing consumers to pay royalties to a creator's grandchildren.  

Yet copyright advocates continued to demand more for another decade. Some, like Sonny Bono (a main proponent of the 1998 law), even argued for perpetual copyrights that would never expire. Perpetual copyright is also forbidden by the U.S. Constitution, which empowers Congress to grant patents and copyrights for "limited times" only; Bono and his ilk hoped to circumvent that by passing further 20-year extensions every 20 years, meaning that the next increase had to happen by 2018.

Fortunately, the internet changed all that, too. The tipping point came in 2012, when Congress debated the Stop Internet Piracy Act (SOPA), which would have forced ISPs to black out websites accused of copyright violation and blacklist the site owners. Online opposition to SOPA was massive and widespread, and in addition backed by big sites like Google and Wikipedia. For once the big money pushing to expand copyright was balanced by big money pushing back. "The defeat of SOPA was so complete," says website Ars Technica, "that it has essentially ended efforts by copyright interests to expand copyright protection via legislation."

Which is why the U.S. enjoyed a Public Domain Day this year. American copyright law today is far from perfect, and in many respects not even very good. But at least this day can remind Americans that, thankfully, their government no longer has carte blanche to make it worse.

Further US copyright extension unlikely this year

Why Mickey Mouse’s 1998 copyright extension probably won’t happen again | Ars Technica - Timothy B. Lee:

January 8, 2018 - "On January 1, 2019, every book, film, and song published in 1923 will fall out of copyright protection — something that hasn't happened in 40 years. At least, that's what will happen if Congress doesn't retroactively change copyright law to prevent it — as Congress has done two previous times.

"Until the 1970s, copyright terms only lasted for 56 years. But Congress retroactively extended the term of older works to 75 years in 1976. Then on October 27, 1998 — just weeks before works from 1923 were scheduled to fall into the public domain — President Bill Clinton signed legislation retroactively extending the term of older works to 95 years, locking up works published in 1923 or later for another 20 years.

"Will Congress do the same thing again this year? To find out, we talked to groups on both sides of the nation's copyright debate.... To our surprise, there seemed to be universal agreement that another copyright extension was unlikely to be on the agenda this year....

"The rise of the Internet has totally changed the political landscape on copyright issues. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is much larger than it was in 1998. Other groups, including Public Knowledge, didn't even exist 20 years ago. Internet companies — especially Google — have become powerful opponents of expanding copyright protections.

"Most importantly, there's now a broad grassroots engagement on copyright issues — something that became evident with the massive online protests against the infamous Stop Online Piracy Act in 2012. SOPA would have forced ISPs to enforce DNS-based blacklists of sites accused of promoting piracy. It was such a bad idea that Wikipedia, Google, and other major sites blacked themselves out in protest.... The protest against SOPA 'was a big show of force," says Meredith Rose, a lawyer at Public Knowledge. The protest showed that 'the public really cares about this stuff.'

"The defeat of SOPA was so complete that it has essentially ended efforts by copyright interests to expand copyright protection via legislation. Prior to SOPA, Congress would regularly pass bills ratcheting up copyright protections.... Since 2012, copyright has been a legislative stalemate, with neither side passing significant legislation.

"And that means that advocates of a new copyright term extension bill wouldn't be able to steamroll opponents the way they did 20 years ago. Any term extension proposal would face a well-organized and well-funded opposition with significant grassroots support.... Of course, copyright interests might try to slip a copyright term extension into a must-pass bill in hopes opponents wouldn't notice until it was too late. But ... 'The likelihood of it slipping by unnoticed' is low, Rose said.

"And even some content creators aren't keen on ever-longer copyright terms. The Authors Guild, for example, 'does not support extending the copyright term, especially since many of our members benefit from having access to a thriving and substantial public domain of older works,' a Guild spokeswoman told Ars in an email. 'If anything, we would likely support a rollback to a term of life-plus-50 if it were politically feasible.'"

Read more: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/hollywood-says-its-not-planning-another-copyright-extension-push/
'via Blog this'

Free speech and social media

Free Speech in the Age of Digital Platforms - Foundation for Economic Education - John Samples, Cato Institute:

August 17, 2018 - "Last week Facebook, Google, and Apple removed videos and podcasts by [a] prominent conspiracy theorist.... Many people are debating these actions, and rightly so....

"The tech companies have the right to govern speech on their platforms; Facebook has practiced such 'content moderation' for at least a decade.... The managers of the platform are agents of the shareholders; they have the power to act on their behalf in this and other matters. (On the other hand, if their decision to ban ... was driven by political animus, they would be shirking their duties and imposing agency costs on shareholders). As private actors, the managers are not constrained by the First Amendment. They could and should remove [someone if] they reasonably believed he drives users off the platform and thereby harms shareholders....

"I see two limits on business logic as a way of governing social media: free speech and fear.

"Elites in the United States value free speech in an abstract sense, apart from legal limits on government. Platform managers are free of the First Amendment, but not of those cultural expectations.

"Fear informs online struggles over speech. The right believes that platform managers are overwhelmingly left-leaning and ... trying to drive everyone on the right off their platforms and into the political wilderness.... The left fears people like [the banned guy] having access to a mainstream audience leading to electoral victories by authoritarians....

"The platforms need legitimacy for their governance. In other words, they need for users (and others) to accept their right to govern (including the power to exclude). Legitimacy would confer authority on the decisions of the platform managers.... What [Max] Weber called rational-legal authority seems to be the only choice for the platforms. In other words, they need a process (or due process) that looks like the rule of law (and not the rule of tech employees).

"Facebook seems to be trying to establish rational-legal authority. It set out Community Standards that guide governing speech.... But do the Community Standards respect the culture of free speech?... Their basic law ... contravenes American free speech legal doctrine. Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, but not by Facebook.

"I conclude that either Facebook’s standard violates the culture of free speech or it reflects a difference between the culture of free speech (which does not include hate speech) and American First Amendment legal doctrine. If the latter, Facebook’s recognition of the difference will foster a greater gap between culture and law.... This asymmetry between inside the companies and outside is not good for the freedom of speech. It is also not good for the legitimacy of content moderation.

"As a legal matter, social media companies have broad discretion to police their platforms. That is how it should be. But they need to make their authority legitimate. If they do not, elected officials may one day act to compel fairness or assuage fears. As always, that will not be good news for the freedom of speech or limited government."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/free-speech-in-the-age-of-digital-platforms/
'via Blog this'

Tech, libertarian groups press for strong encryption

Tech, libertarian groups up pressure on Obama on encryption | TheHill - Cory Bennett:

October 7, 2015 - ""In two separate letters, a major tech trade group and a libertarian-leaning coalition pressed President Obama to publicly support strong encryption, even if it locks out law enforcement officials.

"'As organizations committed to free markets and limited government, we urge your administration to take a clear stand in support of the individual’s right to protect his or her security and privacy with strong encryption technology,' said one letter, signed by groups like TechFreedom and the Niskanen Center.

"''Regardless of good intentions, any efforts to undermine the security and effectiveness of strong encryption are misguided, shortsighted, impractical and ultimately counterproductive,” said a second letter from Ed Black, CEO of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which represents major tech players like Amazon, Facebook, Google and Microsoft.

"The letters come a week after privacy advocates and digital rights groups officially petitioned the White House to take the same stance.

"The combination has created a unique and powerful coalition pressing the White House on encryption.

"The Obama administration has been considering possible proposals that would give law enforcement guaranteed access to encrypted communications. Silicon Valley, privacy advocates and technologists have pushed back against this, arguing any such access makes encryption vulnerable to hackers and cyber spies.... Officials have countered that without access, investigators may not be able to get legitimate data on criminals and terrorists, even when armed with a warrant....

"In recent weeks, leaked memos have shown the White House is considering backpedaling from its desire for a technological solution that would let investigators bypass encryption.

"Privacy advocates have jumped on these signals, collecting signatures on a petition that would require the White House to publicly respond to a call for it to support full encryption.... As of Wednesday, the appeal had collected over 48,000 signatures in nine days."

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/256281-tech-libertarian-groups-up-pressure-on-obama-in-encryption-fight
'via Blog this'

Google resists FBI 'fishing' in Benton's e-mails

Google Won’t Let the Government See the Emails of Rand Paul's Aides | Mother Jones - Russ Choma:

Aug. 19, 2015 - "In the summer of 2014, federal investigators began probing whether Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign had paid Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson for his endorsement. After Sorenson confessed, investigators focused on three other men, including current presidential candidate Rand Paul's nephew-in-law, Jesse Benton, whose email account supposedly contained evidence....

"FBI agents got a search warrant that entitled them to read the emails without Benton's cooperation. But the plan did not go smoothly. Benton has a Gmail account, and Google's policy is to notify users when their accounts have been hit with a search warrant. Benton's attorney, Roscoe Howard, promptly filed a motion to block the search warrant, alleging that it was improper, and Google stopped cooperating with the FBI.

"Two weeks ago, Benton and two other top Paul aides ... were indicted on federal charges, including conspiracy, campaign finance violations, and making false statements.... The FBI still hasn't gotten ahold of Benton's emails. Last week, a judge ruled that the FBI had a right to the emails, but once again, Benton resisted and Google agreed....

"'Frighteningly, the government still maintains that it has the right to trample Mr. Benton’s privacy rights and look through every single one of Mr. Benton’s emails, just as if his email account were a warehouse full of documents,' Howard wrote. 'The government’s statement underscores its true intent —to conduct a fishing expedition.'

"The government has now demanded that Google be held in contempt if the company doesn't immediately turn over the emails, and it has argued that Benton and his attorney can raise their concerns at trial if they don't like the way the search warrant was obtained....

"Hanni Fakhoury, a senior staff counsel with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said courts have not yet settled the question of how specific or broad email search warrants should be.... 'This case is smack in the middle of the debate,' Fakhoury says. 'This is a very high-profile and dramatic example of it, because we're talking about half a million emails.'

"Howard, Benton's attorney, wrote in one filing that his client had cooperated fully with investigators and provided a 50,000-page list of all the emails in his account, which may contain as many as 500,000 emails. Howard argues that the government's search warrant is simply too broad, and that Benton's Gmail account contains both personal and political correspondence.

"Google has now officially joined the fight. Its lawyer, Guy Cook, told the court that the company will not turn over Benton's emails. 'Google cannot be held in contempt simply for allowing Mr. Benton to exercise his appellate rights and awaiting the district court’s ruling on the warrant’s validity,' Cook wrote. The company's position is that it will release emails only after the conflict over the search warrant has been resolved in court.

"A Google spokeswoman declined to discuss the case specifically but said the company won't comply with overly broad requests."

Read more: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/google-jumps-legal-fight-over-paul-aides
'via Blog this'