A group of U.S. lawmakers is proposing new legislation that would allow media organizations to establish terms with social media platforms to share their content, reminiscent of a controversial measure recently adopted in Australia.
The 2021 Competition and Journalism Preservation Act basically creates a 48-month temporary exclusion from the existing antitrust and competition law that would allow small news outlets to join forces to negotiate as a collective bloc with “online content distributors” such as Facebook and Google for favorable terms.
“A strong, diverse and 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,” said Rep. David Cicilline (DR.I.) , when submitting the proposal. “This bill will give hard-working local journalists and editors the help they need now, so they can continue to do their important work.”
This is the third time that Cicilline has presented a similar bill, but now he has more company than in the previous two sessions of Congress. Representatives Ken Buck (RN.Y.) and Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.) E Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) And John Kennedy (R-La.) Also plan to co-sponsor the measure – giving it bipartisan and bicameral support.
The text of the 2021 edition of the bill was not yet available at the time of publication, but previous editions define “online content distributors” covered by the law as aggregators that “display, distribute or direct users to news articles, works of journalism or other content on the Internet “that is generated by news companies and that has” no less than “1 billion users. Very few companies in this world have more than a billion users, so the account is effectively adapted to apply to Facebook and Google, without actually naming any of the companies.
Sounds familiar …
The House’s Antitrust Subcommittee, of which Cicilline is president, held an often contentious hearing on Friday on the bill and the broader topic of how to ensure that the media – especially the local, minor media – can stay afloat when the vast majority of the Internet is controlled by Google or Facebook.
Microsoft President Brad Smith testified at the hearing and said he supports legislative action in the United States, just as Microsoft did in Australia.
“The problems that plague journalism today are caused in part by a fundamental lack of competition in the Google-controlled ad technology and search markets,” said Smith. “As a result, there is a persistent and structural imbalance between a technology guardian and the free press … this makes it very unlikely that the economic transformation needed to restore journalism to health can succeed on a scale without new legislation and government support.”
Smith then explicitly traced the connection to Australia’s new law, arguing, “The idea was simple: Australians implemented legislation to help drive market-based solutions.” The United States could also look for that kind of solution, he suggested.
The path to legislation in Australia, however, was anything but smooth. After that country’s regulators first proposed the law, Google and Facebook did everything in their campaign against it, not only lobbying lawmakers, but also creating pop-up notices that told Australian users: “Your [Google Search / YouTube] is at risk “when visiting Google web properties.
In January of this year, Google was threatening to leave Australia altogether if the bill became law. A month later, the company unexpectedly struck large deals with several Australian media groups to sponsor content outside of search results.
Facebook took it a step further and actually banned all news links within Australia or the Australian media in its services in February. Facebook backed down a week later, when lawmakers agreed to change the bill, which became law a few days later.
Critics have argued that the deals in Australia now mainly benefit major media empires, such as those owned by tycoon Rupert Murdoch, and do not protect or promote the interests of smaller or independent vehicles. During Friday’s hearing in the House, some deputies and witnesses feared that the same would happen in the United States under the proposed legislation.
The proposed bill “provides a temporary solution for a period of 48 months,” countered Cicilline. “And, in fact, anything these big media companies negotiated would be available for the smallest newspaper in any city in the United States.”
The bill currently pending in Congress also does not contain the arbitration provisions in Australian law, which were the biggest point of contention during negotiations in that country.