US AP: California bill advances, requiring Big Tech to pay for news - The bill would mandate that at least 70% of their revenue go to local news organizations to help pay for reporters’ salaries. Big Tech companies would also be prohibited from retaliating against a news outlet for demanding a fee by excluding their content

California bill advances, requiring Big Tech to pay for news
Associated Press (archive.ph)
By Trân Nguyễn
2023-05-02 23:57:39GMT

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Big Tech companies such as Google and Meta might soon have to pay media outlets for posting and using their news content under a proposed California measure attempting to save local journalism.

The bill, which cleared an important Assembly Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday with bipartisan support, would require Google and Meta to share with California media companies their advertising revenue stemming from the news and other reported content. The amount would be determined through an arbitration process.

Supporters of the bill said it would provide a “lifeline” to local news organizations that have seen their advertising revenues nosedive in the digital era. Opponents, including trade groups and some journalism groups, said the legislation would be an unprecedented mandate that violates the First Amendment.

The bill would mandate that at least 70% of their revenue go to local news organizations to help pay for reporters’ salaries. Big Tech companies would also be prohibited from retaliating against a news outlet for demanding a fee by excluding their content on the platforms.

“As news consumption has moved online, community news outlets have been downsized and closing at an alarming rate,” said Assemblymember Buffy Wicks of Oakland, who authored the bill, said during the Tuesday hearing.

The Democrat said that California has lost more than 100 news organizations in the past decade.

“The dominant type platforms, both search engines and social networks, have such unrivaled market power that newsrooms are coerced to share the content they produce, which tech companies sell advertising against for almost no compensation in return,” she said, noting her bill is being backed by major journalism unions such as the News Media Alliance and Media Guild of the West, which represents The Los Angeles Times and other newsrooms.

But critics of the bill said the legislation is unconstitutional for requiring online platforms to post content from all news organizations. It would also reward clickbait content and limit the ability for Google and Meta to fight misinformation on their platforms as it could be seen as retaliation, said a representative from Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group.

Chris Krewson, executive director of LION Publishers, a national news group representing more than 450 independent newsrooms, said the bill is “fundamentally flawed” and wasn’t written with small newsrooms in mind.

The bill would mostly benefit newspaper chains and hedge funds that have gutted local newsrooms in the last few decades, he said. His group represents more than 50 local newsrooms in California, 80% of which are operations with five or fewer journalists. Most of those news outlets wouldn’t meet the requirements to benefit, he said.

“I applaud the lawmaker for getting bipartisan support on this,” Krewson said in an interview Tuesday. “But this is backward.”

Over the last two years, LION Publishers has received at least $1 million in funding from Meta but Krewson said he’s not speaking on the tech company’s behalf.

Similar efforts to bolster local news companies have been attempted across the United States, Australia and Canada, among others, with various levels of success. Australia adopted a law in 2021 that resulted in $140 million in payments to news companies from Google and Facebook last year.

U.S. lawmakers are also pushing for similar initiatives, reintroducing a bill in March that failed in the last congressional session and would have allowed news companies to jointly negotiate an advertising rate with tech giants such as Google.

Meta declined to comment on the California bill but pointed to a statement it made to the U.S. Congress in 2022 and another it made to the Canadian government this year when it threatened to pull all news content from its platform if the company would have to pay for news. Google didn’t respond to an email seeking comment on the California bill.

Despite clearing another hurdle Tuesday, questions remain about how the bill would be implemented. Some lawmakers noted that Meta’s Facebook and Google do not operate the same way. Google scrapes news websites and provides users with summaries of reported content, while Facebook shows content such as photos, videos and articles to users based on their activities on the platform.

Democratic Assemblymember Matt Haney of San Francisco said he’s also concerned with how the state would ensure the money goes to local journalists.

“How do we actually make sure that this isn’t simply profits handed from one company to another big company?” he asked at the hearing Thursday.

Wicks said she plans to have clarifications on those concerns before the June 2 deadline, which is the last day the Assembly could vote on the bill before it is taken up by the Senate. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has not indicated whether he would back such legislation.
 
We need a poll who do we hate more California bugmen or journoscum
They both try to force you to be like them, but one uses economic and legal pressure while the other users social pressure and information warfare. They might as well be different arms of the same manbearpig.

What? That looks like a violation of the First Amendment.
Looks more like the consequences of their own actions to me. Specifically the actions where big tech can't decide whose speech they're broadcasting.
  • If someone is trying to lynch children: Oh it's the users saying that and the algorithm highlighting it, we never chose to say that, section 230 all the way.
  • "Learn to code": actually that is our speech afterall and forcing us to not silence our users violates the first amendment
  • Revenge porn: Our founder is a jew so we have a first amendment right nay, responsibility! To publish revenge pornography to stop the next rise of Hitler. Even if the subject of said pornography is a child, so long as they're no younger than 4 years old. Actually I guess this one is more the journalist side. Ridiculous 1A argument made in court, but the company isn't considered to be big tech.
They wanted both, they wanted the content to simultaneously be their speech and not their speech. Just, like Democrats, they never foresaw a day where someone else gets to choose how to interpret the rules using the precedents already in place.

This is idiotic. I hope they all lose somehow.
Easiest way would be lawfare bills
 
What? That looks like a violation of the First Amendment.
Big Tech fucked all that up when they decided to start censoring content. They can’t pretend to be impartial vessels for information can pass through. Furthermore the vast majority of big tech owes a lot of their existence by the government having a light touch and looking the other way when these firms break the law. If laws were actually followed, many of these companies would not exist and many in big tech leadership roles are acutely aware of this. Tossing a few bread crumbs to journoscum so Silicon Valley “visionaries” can keep living in multimillion dollar lofts is just the cost of doing business.
 
Meta threatens to block news in California over journalism bill
The Washington Post (archive.ph)
By Naomi Nix and Cristiano Lima
2023-05-31 21:45:57GMT

Meta is threatening to block users in California from sharing news articles on its social media networks to protest a state legislative proposal that would force tech companies to pay publishers for their content.

The social media giant said Wednesday that if the California Journalism Preservation Act passes, the company would “be forced” to pull news from Facebook and Instagram in the state rather than agree to pay news outlets the journalism usage fee that the bill would require.

Meta’s stand mirrors its responses to a wave of regulatory proposals around the world that aim to bolster the struggling news industry by requiring social media platforms to negotiate deals with news outlets for content shared on their platforms. Over the years, traditional news publishers have lost key revenue sources while tech companies such as Facebook and Google became the predominant beneficiaries of the digital advertising market.

In response, media advocates have been pushing a string of bills that would force the Silicon Valley giants to share more of their revenue with publishers, arguing the companies are benefiting from the content that news outlets pay to produce. Tech companies oppose such proposals, saying they fail to take into account the value their platforms provide to the news outlets by distributing their content.

In recent years, Meta has threatened to pull news from its platforms in protest of similar proposals in Australia and Canada. The law eventually passed in Australia and has been credited with directing an estimated $130 million annually to news outlets from Meta and Google. The Canadian proposal is still under consideration.

Lawmakers in Washington D.C. dropped a measure last year that would have created a temporary carve-out in antitrust law to allow publishers to band together to negotiate with the tech giants over the distribution of their content after Meta said it would “consider removing news from our platform” if it passed.

The California bill calls for large tech companies to pay a “journalism usage fee” whenever they run ads next to news content. The bill also would require publishers to spend the majority of the money they receive through the law to hire and retain journalists.

Meta spokesman Andy Stone in a Tweet said the bill would primarily benefit out-of-state media companies “under the guise of aiding California publishers.”

“The bill fails to recognize that publishers and broadcasters put their content on our platform themselves and that substantial consolidation in California’s local news industry came over 15 years ago, well before Facebook was widely used,” Stone wrote.

The bill is sponsored by Assembly member Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), who has proposed a number of bills targeting the tech giants, including a bill signed into law last year that requires tech companies to vet their products for potential harms to children before rolling them out. NetChoice, a trade group that counts Meta, Amazon and other tech companies as members, is suing to block the measure, arguing it is unconstitutional. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.)

“This threat from Meta is a scare tactic that they’ve tried to deploy, unsuccessfully, in every country that’s attempted this,” Wicks said in a statement. “It’s egregious that one of the wealthiest companies in the world would rather silence journalists than face regulation.”

The bill has cleared two key state committee votes, and a vote on the measure in the Assembly is expected Thursday, Wicks’s office said.

“The bigger picture here is that a ban on publisher content would be a lose-lose situation for Facebook and for publishers,” said Jasmine Enberg, an analyst who covers social media for analytics firm Insider Intelligence. “ Despite what Meta says, news does generate a ton of engagement for Facebook in particular, which brings in ad dollars.”

Meta’s threat arrives at a moment of economic vulnerability for both internet platforms and media outlets that are reliant on advertising dollars. Rising inflation, new privacy rules from Apple and slowing demand for e-commerce goods have hurt the digital marketing industry in recent months.

Meta, which is facing intensifying competition in the social media market, has slashed more than 20,000 jobs, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has warned that the company may face tough economic challenges for years. Last month, BuzzFeed News announced it was shutting down, citing declining advertising and “a tech recession.” Other outlets such as NPR and CNN have also laid off workers.

If California enacts the law and Meta follows through on its threat, it would mark the first time the company has blocked news content in the U.S.
 
I don't know who to support on this, since I hate all parties involved.
Sadly the companies. This is direct government redistribution of wealth and will not be a great precedent if it stands up to legal challenges.

Next thing you know you will be required to pay 30% of your after tax income to help Tyrone get a new crack pipe.
 
Sadly the companies. This is direct government redistribution of wealth and will not be a great precedent if it stands up to legal challenges.

Next thing you know you will be required to pay 30% of your after tax income to help Tyrone get a new crack pipe.
I'm pretty sure we're damn close already since meth pipes have been part of safe drug use kits and iirc crack pipes are identical, so we're basically a word and a line item in the budget away from the "safe freebasing kit", courtesy of your local city or state government.
 
At this point Google should just ban all news results from their search engine and start their own news service.
 
The "news" media tried this stunt back iirc around 2005-6 before YouTube is what it is. And carpetbagged their expensive video content onto YouTube which Google and everyone else is paying for their hosting and bandwidth.
 
Journos are so fucking useless that people have to be forced to pay for the basic fucking service they don't provide. Journalists are fucking useless, enemies of the people and propped up by rotting dead boomers who still think owning a newspaper is impressive. Dumb Nigger Soros 'saved' Vice by injecting $400 million into it, fucking lol.

At this point Google should just ban all news results from their search engine and start their own news service.

I wouldn't be surprised that this is why Google paid the NYTimes exclusively for news at $100 million, so Google basically did this.
 
limit the ability for Google and Meta to fight misinformation on their platforms as it could be seen as retaliation,
This phrase alone makes me 100% in favor of this legislation.
 
Just get rid of the fake news entirely, it is serving nobody's interests.
 
Back