Skip to main content

Natasha Tusikov is an associate professor of criminology in the department of social science at York University, the co-author of The New Knowledge: Information, Data and the Remaking of Global Power, and a contributing author to the Centre for International Governance Innovation.

Massive wildfires in the Northwest Territories and the Okanagan area of southern British Columbia are again highlighting the vital role that social media companies play in enabling people to access and share information during a natural disaster.

Many people have become accustomed to receiving news stories through Facebook and Instagram – about 30 per cent and 10 per cent of Canadians do so, respectively – but with Meta now blocking all Canadian news on those two social media platforms, those fleeing wildfires had another thing to worry about. As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said last week, “Facebook is putting corporate profits ahead of our democracy and well-being.”

Meta’s actions constitute a “choke point” – a tactic that only works when companies command significant market share and provide critical services. Worse, this news ban is political, intended to pressure the Canadian government into amending or repealing Bill C-18, the Online News Act, which will require “fair revenue sharing” between companies designated as “digital news intermediaries” such as Google and Meta and news outlets.

Requirements for social media companies to distribute ad revenue are not novel. In February, 2021, Facebook reportedly used news blockades to bully the Australian government, which had introduced the News Media Bargaining Code, requiring Facebook and Google to establish commercial agreements with media companies in Australia for the remuneration of news content, or face legal consequences. The blockades resulted in the Australian government amending the bill, and Facebook lifting its news ban after eight days.

Meta’s Canadian news ban during a state of emergency starkly highlights the capriciousness and cruelty of corporate power. But it also provides an ideal opportunity to reflect upon how we can regulate tech companies’ power, and why Meta’s decision is so consequential for news media organizations and for its users.

Meta, alongside Google, dominates the digital advertising industry. As digital advertisers, these companies courted the news industry and inserted themselves into the ecosystem. This relationship became interdependent: news organizations now rely upon Google and Facebook for advertising revenue and traffic to their sites, while the social media companies benefit from users’ engagement with news stories, driving advertising. This relationship, however, is distinctly asymmetrical: social media companies control the advertising revenue flows by setting rates, and control user engagement through secret algorithms, allowing them to set rules that privilege their commercial interests over those of news organizations or the public.

Facebook and Instagram also have the power to create choke points because they are designed to function not just as social media companies, but also as interfaces through which people would access other sites and services on the web. Facebook has long desired to be an “everything” or “mega” app that combines messaging, social media, payments, and marketplace services in the same way that Tencent’s WeChat app has done in the Chinese market. This ambition has raised concerns of anti-competitive behaviour in the United States and elsewhere. While accessing news directly through a media organization’s app or its website is possible, this goes against Meta’s carefully constructed social media empire.

Recognizing how social media companies wield market power – including by instituting choke points that deprive other actors of revenue sources or audiences – better equips us for designing effective regulation. Canada’s efforts to implement the Online News Act can learn from Australia’s experience where, for example, researchers have found that a lack of transparency makes it difficult to determine which news outlets receives what amount of funds from social media companies. Diana Bossio, a researcher from Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, notes that under the code, social media companies may act to serve their “business priorities, rather than in the interest of the code’s stated aim of supporting public-interest journalism.”

The fight over the Online News Act is also a preview of the battles yet to come. The federal government has plans to introduce the right to repair for software-connected goods in 2024 and revive consultations on its long-stalled online harms legislation. These two initiatives will generate significant opposition from Big Tech, as has been evident in the United States, where high-powered lobby groups have pushed back against right-to-repair legislation. We need to plan how to regulate the wider digital economy and digital society, while addressing the problem of monopolies operated by incredibly powerful technology companies.

Meta’s extortive tactics during a wildfire-induced state of emergency are a dare for the Canadian government to back down. Instead, Canada needs to push back against unchecked corporate power.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

Follow topics related to this article:

Check Following for new articles

Interact with The Globe