It’s banning left and right in the US. Seriously, why can’t they push the same to change stipulations under the 2nd amendment? Anyhow, California is possibly in hot water with Meta since it’s considering a new ‘Journalism Preservation Act’, which would essentially force Meta to pay for news content that users share on Facebook. Meta has threatened to ban news content entirely in the state, which seems to be a new default for Meta in such circumstances.
No News in Cali?
California’s Journalism Preservation Act aims to address imbalances in the digital advertising sector by forcing Meta to share a cut of its revenue with local publishers. The central argument is that Facebook benefits from increased engagement as a result of news content, thus gaining ad revenue, as Facebook users share and discuss news content via links.
The flaw here, however, as repeatedly argued by Meta, is that Meta doesn’t glean much value from publishers as they do from Facebook, despite what the media players continue to project. Check out what Meta Spokesperson Andy Stone said here.
As noted, the basis for all of these proposals is that Meta benefits from publisher content, so it should also pay to use it. However, with Meta’s own insights showing the total views of posts with links (in the US) have declined by almost half in the last two years, Facebook is becoming increasingly less reliant on news content over time.
Regardless, that hasn’t stopped big players from pushing for reforms and using their influence over political parties to make larger profits, as their own income streams continue to dry up due to evolving consumption shifts. Likewise, these shifts have benefited online platforms and, over time, Meta and Google have gradually eaten up more and more market ad share, squeezing out the competition. Overall, that leaves less money for publishers, which equates to less money for journalists, thus leading to less comprehensive and informative local media ecosystems.
Though investment in local media makes sense, the idea that Meta should be funding it is flawed, and has always been in every application of this kind of approach – remember what happened with the Australian Media Bargaining Code back in 2021? No idea? That’s exactly what we mean! Meta eventually re-negotiated the terms of the Code, but it should have probably stood its ground and refused any sort of payment.
The Wrap
Either way, it remains a flawed approach, which, if anything, will only further prompt Meta to phase out news content more, as it focuses on entertainment thru Reels engagement. Meta even sought to fully cut off political content from user Feeds as it moves more towards content discovery, and away from sharing perspectives.
What that means, for the likes of California and Canada, are in increasingly weaker positions as they seek to negotiate these kinds of deals. It might be challenging for Meta to initiate a state-wide ban on news content, but I do think that they could, and would, do so if push comes to shove. So, would California and Canada push through with it?
Please note:
This action will also remove this member from your connections and send a report to the site admin.
Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.
