A group of U.S. lawmakers is proposing new legislation that allows media organizations to share content with social media platforms, reminiscent of a controversial measure recently adopted in Australia.
The Competition and Conservation of Journalism Act of 2021 basically creates a temporary effect on the existing 48-month antitrust and competition legislation, enabling small news agencies to join forces to negotiate as a collective bloc with online content distributors’ like Facebook and Google for favorable terms.
“A strong, diverse, free press is critical to any successful democracy. Access to reliable local journalism helps to inform the public, hold powerful people accountable and eradicate corruption,” Rep. David Cicilline (DR.I.) said when he was introduced. the proposal. “This bill gives hard-working local reporters and publishers the help they currently need so they can continue to do their important work.”
This is the third time Cicilline has filed a similar bill, but he now has more company than in the previous two congressional sessions. Reps. Ken Buck (RN.Y.) and Mark DeSaulnier (D-California) and Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) And John Kennedy (R-La.) Also plan to sponsor the measure and give it both two-party and two-chamber support.
Text for the 2021 edition of the bill was not yet available at the time of publication, but previous editions define “online content distributors” covered by law as collectors who “display, distribute or lead users to news articles, journalistic works or other content” on the Internet “generated by news companies and having” no less “1 billion users. Very few businesses in this world have more than a billion users, so the bill has been effectively adapted to apply to Facebook and Google without mentioning any company.
Looks familiar …
The House subcommittee, chaired by Cicilline, held an often-controversial hearing on Friday on the bill and the broader topic of how to ensure media – especially smaller, local media – can stay afloat. the black can remain if the vast majority of the the internet is controlled by Google or Facebook.
Microsoft President Brad Smith testified during the trial that he supported legislative action in the US, just as Microsoft had done in Australia.
“The problems facing journalism today are due in part to a fundamental lack of competition in the search and ad technology markets controlled by Google,” Smith said. “As a result, there is a persistent and structural imbalance between a technological gatekeeper and the free press … this makes it very unlikely that the economic transformation needed to restore journalism to health can succeed on a large scale without new legislation and government support. “
Smith then explicitly drew on the connection with Australia’s new law, arguing: “The idea there was simple: the Australians introduced legislation to help drive market-based solutions.” The US could also look for that kind of solution, he suggested.
However, the road to legislation in Australia was anything but smooth. After regulators in the country first proposed the law, Google and Facebook used everything in their campaign against it, not only urging lawmakers but also creating pop-up alerts that said to Australian users: “You [Google Search / YouTube] is at risk “when you visit Google’s web properties.
By January this year, Google is threatening to abandon Australia altogether if the bill becomes law. A month later, the company unexpectedly cut large deals with several Australian media groups to sponsor content outside the search results.
Facebook went a step further and in February actually banned all news links in Australia or Australian media. Facebook backtracked a week later when lawmakers agreed to amend the bill, which became law a few days later.
Critics have argued that the deals in Australia are now primarily favored to large media empires, such as those owned by the powerful Rupert Murdoch, and do not protect or promote the interests of smaller or independent stores. During the Friday hearing in the House, some representatives and witnesses were concerned that the same would happen in the US under the proposed legislation.
The proposed bill “provides a temporary solution for a period of 48 months,” Cicilline opposed. “And in fact, anything that these larger media companies negotiate will be available to the smallest newspaper in any city or town in America.”
The bill currently being considered in Congress also does not contain the arbitration clauses in Australian law, which was the biggest point of contention during negotiations in the country.