Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!

A A
By:

Canada’s news ban one year later

It’s been a year now since Meta banned Canadian news from its Facebook and Instagram platforms, in response to Canada’s 2023 “Online News Act.” This Act required large “digital news intermediaries” – only Google and Meta met the criteria – to compensate Canadian news outlets for news articles the social media giants shared on their platforms. Instead of paying up, Meta instead chose to stop sharing these news links.

Now, a year later, a report from the Media Ecosystem Observatory (MEO) highlights how the ban has hurt Canadian media’s online presence. The report estimated that pre-ban, Canadian news outlets’ social media engagement amounted to more than 19 million a day, but post ban that has dropped by 8 million or roughly 43%. It has hit local news particularly hard because many were only on Facebook, and not other platforms.

The results also include almost a third of Canadian news outlets going effectively dark on the social web, no longer posting to it. 770 outlets were posting prior to the ban, and a year later that’s down by 215.

So in some pretty significant ways the Online News Act is hurting, rather than helping, Canadian news outlets.

The premise behind the Act was always flawed. It was built on the presumption that by linking to news articles, these two companies, in some way, owed the news outlets something. Google and Meta were making money off of sharing these news links, as Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram rank one, two, and three among the places Canadians turn to for their news. Being a home to these links brought more traffic which meant more ad revenue. But Meta and Google were helping their bottom line by also helping these news outlets. Any online creator, big or small, wants their content shared – that’s how we can reach further. No shares means no reads, watches, or listens. That’s why companies will pay Meta and Google to share their posts – so we can reach more people. The idea of penalizing these companies for sharing links to news articles is akin to penalizing them for giving out free promotional ads.

Both Google and Meta threatened to simply stop carrying any Canadian news – if what they were doing was going to be viewed as theft, then they would stop “stealing.” However, shortly before the Act came into force, Google negotiated an agreement with the Canadian government, giving it $100 million a year to be distributed as the government so decides. The Act becomes yet another medium for the Liberal government to direct dollars to the media outlets it wants to support.

Meta held firm – it would not pay – so it chose instead to stop allowing Canadian news shares on its platforms. The government backed them into a corner, and they decided to show just how helpful (and not harmful) they were to Canada’s news outlets… by no longer helping them. A year later, and the point has been well made. Canadians are still turning to Facebook and Instagram for their news, but there isn’t much to find. The Online News Act has effectively prevented many Canadians from being able to access Canadian news coverage.

So, will the government learn its lesson and back down? Or is the Liberal government happy with Canadians being limited in their access to Canadian news? If that first doesn’t happen, it only makes the second seem quite plausible.

Enjoyed this article?

Get the best of RP delivered to your inbox every Saturday for free.



Red heart icon with + sign.
Media bias, News

"Conservative" media fails the test

In the lead-up to the Olympics, one New Zealand athlete got more attention than his athletic ability warranted. What drew the media spotlight to him was that he was participating in a woman's event. Gavin Hubbard had changed his name to Laurel, and the International Olympic Committee was willing to buy into his delusion and pretend he had become a woman. Hubbard had reportedly gotten into the sport as a young man in the hopes it would masculinize him, and something could be said about whether weightlifting is an inherently masculine sport. The world would now laugh at the notion, but for 100 years at the Olympic level, it was exclusively male, only changing at the 2000 Syndey Olympics. Should Christians laugh at the idea of a sport being for one gender and not the other? While there is a fuzzy line between what exactly is masculine and what is feminine, God has assigned men and women different roles, made us differently, and wants women to be women and men to be men (Deut. 22:5). That Hubbard could look quite like the female competitors was not because he looked feminine at all, but rather that their bulked-up bodies looked quite masculine. But the real story here was the media coverage of Hubbard. Predictably, mainstream media outlets like the New York Times and ESPN referred to him as her. This was a shibboleth of sorts – a one-word test to uncover whether the media source you were reading had bowed down to the woke mob in defiance of science, common sense, and most importantly what the Bible has revealed, that God decides gender and no one else (Gen. 1:27). If an outlet called Hubbard her, then they'd outed themselves as being part of the problem. While the mainstream press all bowed, how did "conservative" media outlets fare? Fox News carried stories about how unfair it was for Hubbard to compete in the women's division, and yet still used female pronouns for Hubbard. It might have been too much to hope that the National Post would stand strong, and, in fact, they did not. But it will surprise some to learn that Canada's "renegade" news outlet, Rebel News, followed the same pattern, making the case against Hubbard's participation, and yet still referring to him as her. At least some of National Review's coverage passed the test. WORLD magazine's few articles on him seemed to studiously avoid any use of pronouns for Hubbard, using his name instead. One of the only news outlets to actually use male pronouns for Hubbard was LifeSiteNews.com. While these outlets passed the test, that's not an endorsement of all they write – this is just one mark in their favor. What's more definitive is what it reveals about the outlets that failed the test. If they can't even be relied upon to state a simple biological fact everyone knows to be true, they've shown themselves incapable of standing up to the mob and not worthy of our trust. Cartoon used with permission (PatCrosscartoons.com). ...