, 03.13.2023 10:48 AM

My latest: up yours, Google

Evasive. Duplicitous. Condescending.

If you were to (ironically) do a Google search to find a record of the meeting 69 of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, those would be the words you’d use. Because those words describe — perfectly, accurately — the “testimony” of two Google executives before Members of Parliament last week.

The pair were there to offer up objections to Bill C-18, which would provide Canadian news providers with some degree of compensation for the content that Google — and Facebook, and others — routinely swipe from them, and profit from. C-18 is a fair and reasonable approach to a problem that every modern democracy on Earth faces: Namely, how to keep Google et al. from putting real news media out of business.

The company that owns this newspaper supports C-18, yes, as does every other struggling news organization in Canada. But that is not why this writer supports it: I’m a freelancer, and I easily make my living elsewhere. I support C-18 not simply because it is the right thing to do. I support it because it is the bare minimum of what we must do.

Make no mistake: If C-18 is not passed by Parliament, the consequences will be very dire. The costs will be immense. A diminished democracy, an ill-informed populace, and some of the most obscenely rich companies in the world getting even richer. And even less accountable.

Appearing before the Standing Committee to bleat about C-18 was Sabrina Geremia, a vice-president and “country manager” for Google. With her was Google functionary Jason Kee, who liked to say that he runs lots of “tests.”

One of those “tests,” it turns out, is for Google to punish several million Canadians, and bar their access to news reports. That is, censor Canadian news organizations — cancel them, erase them — because Google doesn’t like what C-18 would do.

What would C-18 do? Require Google and others to share in some of the profit it reaps — US$225 billion a year, last year — from pilfering, and posting, the work of journalists. That’s it. Giving Canadians some credit, and some return, on the work that they do.

In her opening remarks, Google Canada’s “country manager” Geremia wheedled that her company has “worked constructively” with Canada and “offered reasonable and balanced solutions” to resolve their issues with C-18. Some of those solutions, it turns out, are to simply deny Canadians access to information.

Also, in her remarks — which revealed a flair for Orwellian Newspeak that was frankly without equal — Geremia huffed that “C-18 puts a price on free links to web pages, setting a dangerous precedent that threatens the foundations of the open and free flow of information.”

Wow? Did you get that? “Dangerous precedents” are being set, ones that literally “threaten the foundation” of all free speech and knowledge. And here we just thought we were asking Google and their cabal to account for what they purloin.

Anyway. In the question-and-answer section of the meeting, the lead Conservative MP, Marilyn Gladu, revealed herself to be an enthusiastic supplicant for Google, declaring that her party “agreed with some of the concerns” Google had. Said she: “I certainly share your concerns with the bill.”

Well, take note, Canada. The Conservative Party now stands for the proposition that wealthy global multinationals should be able to unfairly profit on the hard work of others. But that’s them.

The Liberals, to my surprise, did much better. Montreal Liberal MP Anthony Housefather was absolutely brilliant in the way he took apart the Google apparatchiks. He pointed out that senior Google executives had come to Canada to lobby behind closed doors — but when the Standing Committee summoned them, they arrogantly refused to come.

He pointed out that Google was supposed to provide its emails and notes about C-18 to the committee in advance and didn’t. Asked repeatedly about that, Geremia blinked a lot and actually said she didn’t understand “the premise” of the question. Gotcha.

Anyway. Google the words evasive, duplicitous and condescending. It’ll take you right to the testimony of the two Google executives.

Do it soon, however.

You never know when Google is going to bar your access to news, Canada.

52 Comments

  1. Curious V says:

    Google isn’t what it used to be. Do a search and the results are manipulated – you never get what you’re looking for, these days – it used to be a pretty good tool.

  2. Curious V says:

    Conservatives always cave to industry and big business, to the detriment of Canadian Culture and consumers.

    PP blathers about pride in swinging a hammer, from a guy who probably didn’t even mow lawns as a teenager. Ever swung a hammer for a living – I have, and it’s all kinds of fun until you get hurt and you can’t swing it anymore. What’s he going to do for folks who, by 40/50, can’t swing a hammer, or crouch, or bend, or lift – It’s glorious career until you get hurt

  3. Curious V says:

    Conservatives aren’t good stewards of Canadian culture. We need our own news content and productions – it’s important and an area Conservatives don’t value.

    • Peter Williams says:

      Canadian culture as defined by Team Trudeau:
      – lying
      – unethical behaviour
      – awarding government contacts to close personal friends
      – admiring “basic dictatorships”
      – conspicuous consumption on the public purse
      – endless hypocrisy

  4. Curious V says:

    I get a kick out of PP, a career ideologue, blabbing about the virtues of physical work when he’s never done any. I can tell you from personal experience that people who do physical work have a short career, they rarely get disability coverage. If you get hurt, especially in residential construction, you are unlikely to have any benefits, so that’s it for you. If he wants to glorify this kind of work he should follow it up with benefits and protections against physical injury and then layoff – of course they don’t usually get EI because they work as contractors. If you get hurt, you don’t get paid, and you’re usually laid off or fired. I was stronger than most men, physically, but it doesn’t really matter when your back goes, when your knees go – He can glorify it, but what’s clear is that he’s never done any of it, so he’s talking out of his ass.

    • Peter Williams says:

      And Justin worked really hard in his career. I mean just look how often he’s got his sleeves rolled up.

      • Curious V says:

        At least he worked – he was a teacher. PP has never had a real job.

      • western view says:

        The sleeves are rolled up to show off the anchor tattoos on his biceps.

        • Martin Dixon says:

          As mentioned, PP was a paper boy because that was probably the only way he could get any spending money. Justin was able to fool around and travel the world with dividends paid out from his dad’s numbered company that Pierre got from his dad, Charles. That wealth was from gas stations, just for the record. The paper boy litmus test is good enough for me if one wants to compare life’s lessons. The mileage may vary for those that look down on paper boys.

    • Jeff Whelpton says:

      Like being a snowboard instructor & bouncer?

  5. ted says:

    I’m having a hard time buying the Liberal position on this bill and I’m not shedding too many tears for the problems of Golden Tree Asset Management running a modern newspaper business.

    There are all sorts of problems with the modern journalism model, but I’m not sure Google is one of the big ones on my list.

    Why should Google be collecting the funds for other people’s endeavours? I have some sympathy for their argument that they are a conduit. A well paid conduit, that needs to be taxed more efficiently to be sure, but I’m not convinced they are in media much at all at the end of the day.

    They say they’ll stop linking to news if their hand is forced and people get upset. To my mind, that illustrates a big problem with the arguments being used against them.

    Twitter has completely altered the landscape for a lot of reporting I think. That genie isn’t going back in the bottle.

    What are the answers?

    The Guardian springs to mind as one company that has weathered the storm using a public funding model. Sadly, it’s a bit left of the dial for me.

    I’m interested in seeing how Justin Ling and Paul Wells make out with their superstar online paid subscription journalist concept.

    And it’s really too bad there aren’t more multitasking dudes that enjoy cranking out journalism for free in their spare time.

    At the end of the day, the producer needs to convince the consumer that the product is something they need to buy. As HST remarked once to Steadman,
    “Remember Ralph, it’s not art until it’s sold.”

    • Jim R says:

      “They say they’ll stop linking to news if their hand is forced and people get upset. To my mind, that illustrates a big problem with the arguments being used against them. ”

      Exactly. Nobody that ever had someone stealing from them on a regular basis ever got upset when the thief stopped doing so.

      Fact of the matter, Google is not stealing content – that would be copyright infringement, which is already unlawful.

      Google does link to articles, and if one wants to actually read an article then one must follow the link to the content provider’s website, which benefits said content provider.
      The mischaracterization by government and the Canadian news industry of what Google does is a real disservice to Canadians and to them.

      Supporting Canadian news entities is a good thing in my books, however, bill C-18 is not a reasonable way to do it.

      FWIW, this issue is different from Google’s dominance in advertising technology, and that may indeed be a case where Google is guilty of anti-competitive behaviour.

  6. WestGuy says:

    I’ve seen variations of your last line, about barring access to news, in a few other places and I don’t understand it.
    Neither google nor facebook are Internet Service Providers, like Telus or Bell, so both lack the ability to bar access to anything. They are content providers. Facebook can only affect things within the facebook environment and google is a search engine. If google is threatening to filter search results to remove all links to online news that’s one thing but I don’t get the sense that is being threatened. And besides, if it was, I could just use another search engine and still access the same news so google isn’t really “banning” anything. If facebook is going to ban links to news sites, that doesn’t mean I can’t access the news sites directly or through other means.
    I can’t help but feel the issue is being misrepresented by media outlets who are implying that google and facebook are threatening to limit access to all news sites, the same media outlets who would benefit if facebook and google were forced to start paying for content used. Much of what you said has also been said elsewhere with terms like banning or barring access to news. Is the issue being misrepresented or “ginned up” because media has a vested interest in the outcome?
    I agree with you that if content is being used then it should be paid for but I disagree with you that its wrong for them to threaten to remove links. If you are about to increase costs for something a business does, you have to reasonably expect that business to consider not doing that thing anymore.

  7. Curious V says:

    Without newspapers reporting we’ll be held ransom by ridiculous social media bunk – That’s what’s happened to conservatives, they’ve distanced themselves from traditional media and filled the void with wacko conspiracy theory bunk that’s fed to us on social media

  8. EsterHazyWasALoser says:

    I will preface my remarks by saying I am no expert on this matter. With that disclaimer out of the way, my understanding of the problems facing print journalism is that their business model no longer works. Our current federal government has created a special fund that provides hundreds of millions of dollars to legacy media (if that is the correct term) to keep them going. My personal opinion is that this is a form of “corporate welfare”, a policy I don’t support. I am sorry for people who work in that industry and may lose their job. However, times change. People get their news on-line now, and if I am an example, I get mine from various sites which are not part of the MSM. To make sure I am not misunderstood, I am no fan of big tech either. In the country to the south, it is clear that many in Silicon Valley have a very unhealthy and sinister relationship with government, and certain political parties. For an example, follow Matt Taibbi and his expose of the Twitter files. I don’t see why these internet companies should not be allowed to decide what content they wish to host or not. Maybe from their point of view, this feels like a shakedown.

  9. Curious V says:

    The medium has changed, but that doesn’t mean that the folks providing the content shouldn’t get paid. It’s up to parliament to make laws, and this one offers some compensation for content providers – a good idea.

  10. Martin Dixon says:

    A couple of the posters here that casually throw around the word Nazi need to read this article that was on the top of the newsfeed on this site:

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/nazi-references-bbc-sportscaster-s-tweet-revives-debate-1.6313771

    • Curious V says:

      There’s been an upsurge in extreme right-wing activity, so it’s often times an appropriate comparison. Even the rhetoric is enough to set people off who lived through Nazi occupation. My dad sees the world through that lens, having been occupied by Nazis in Holland, so he makes the comparison whenever he sees, or hears the kind of rhetoric that comes from the extreme right – he does it from personal experience. Anti-immigrant rhetoric, anti-sematic and racist rhetoric – conspiracy theories – these things are on the rise and we should be made aware of the danger that lies in that kind of politics and rhetoric.

  11. Martin,

    In my case, I’m already crystal clear: anyone who wants to “replace” a government either north or south of the border by any means other than the ballot box automatically qualifies as a Nazi in my book. Period.

    • Martin Dixon says:

      With respect Ronald, they should probably be called something but not Nazis just because they happen to share ONE attribute. By your definition, those south of the border that started the American Revolution were Nazis. Given all the latest revelations of the suppression of the vote in some Tory ridings, one needs to wonder if we are being taxed up here without representation too. Enquiring minds want to know. That sounds a tad hyperbolic but no more hyperbolic than calling the bouncy castle types Nazis. Like the article said, it diminishes the term.

    • Curious V says:

      You’re not alone in thinking that Ronald. I was watching Fred Delorey, an ex Harper staffer, and he also thinks Johnston is the best choice.

      • Martin Dixon says:

        Here’s the problem. There should be a handbook about how to pick someone for a job that does not have an APPEARANCE of a conflict. Somewhere in that handbook it should say:

        1. Did you “summer” with the candidate?
        No-got to next step
        Yes-make another choice if you want his recommendations to be accepted universally. That may not be fair but that is the world we live in. It is a dumbass choice. It is hard to believe that this actually has to be written down. Are you new here?

        Now that should be self evident but clearly it isn’t. I think he is a “Great Canadian” too. But to think he is the best choice given the above is ridiculous. It is unfortunate that he got dragged down into the PM’s nonsense.

  12. Martin Dixon says:

    Justin just appointed someone he likely called Uncle David while he “summered” with him in the 70s to be the rapporteur. I won’t get into all the other conflicts. That should be sufficient. Hands up everyone who is STILL going to vote for him?

    • Martin,

      My brother knows his daughters. But that is neither here nor there.

      Personally, I have full confidence in Johnston’s integrity and ethics. To put it in a party context: if he was good enough for Harper, he’s still good enough for me. He’ll tell it like it is and you can be damned sure that the chips will fall where they may. Again, an excellent choice.

      • Martin Dixon says:

        Ronald-if he says nothing to see here, you may believe him but many won’t. How is that helpful? Couldn’t he find someone with absolutely no connection to him?

        • Martin,

          I may be hopelessly naive but there’s a reason why Trudeau is systematically refusing to hold an inquiry: in short, any credible rapporteur is bound and highly likely to find something. Johnston is playing a role in defining his mandate– and I’ll go even further: IF Johnston finds a smoking gun, mandate or no mandate, he will go there and put whatever he finds under the light. I strongly believe he will look to CSIS before determining what can be made public. Put another way, he will go as far as he possibly can re: his report and what can be publicly released once it comes out. There’s no way that he can report and then lose control over what can be released. Why would he take the job if he knew that a partial to total whitewash was ultimately in the cards, post-release? Johnston has far too much integrity for that. This is history books stuff and his place therein re: this mandate will shine. No doubt about that.

    • Curious V says:

      Do you think CSIS has any conservative politicians under surveillance for their ties to the extreme right? I have no idea, but I wonder. The Germans do, so I wonder if CSIS does the same in Canada?

    • Peter Williams says:

      Inside Justin’s office:

      K. “David Johnson would be a great choice”

      JT. “Not only is he a good friend, he’s one of us”

      K. “Plus, he got Mulroney off”

  13. Robert White says:

    Thanks for beating Google up, Warren. They deserve it.

    The tech Oligarchy is a bully in need of sanction.

    RW

  14. Peter Williams says:

    Two basic rules of Government: Never look into anything you don’t have to, and never set up an inquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be. Sir Humphrey Appleby.

    Looks like Sir Humphrey is required reading for Team Trudeau.

  15. Curious V says:

    I don’t think Johnston’s relationship with the Trudeau’s is at all relevant. He’s getting approval from within the Conservative Party, from the NDP, and of course from Liberals. His reputation is impeccable, and he’s respected across the political spectrum. PP just wants a show trial, he isn’t interested in constructive progress.

    • Peter Williams says:

      His reputation is no longer impeccable. A person of integrity would recuse themselves, or even better refuse the job.

      Looks like Mr Johnston has Trudeau style ethics.

      • Curious V says:

        He hasn’t even started. All he has done is accept a role where he’ll review CSIS intelligence and make recommendations regarding enforcement, Elections Canada’s role, and perhaps a public inquiry. Conservatives in PP’s camp are losing credibility for their overzealous lust for a kangaroo court. It becomes strikingly obvious that they aren’t interested in due diligence, balanced advice, or non-partisan cooperation – they’re far too partisan to have a credible opinion and I think Canadians are starting to realize that.

        • Martin Dixon says:

          Hilarious given the Liberals shenanigans about Telford. One party is losing cred and it is not the Conservatives.

      • Peter,

        Johnston will be impartial, perhaps to a fault. Fellow Conservatives forget why I raked Johnston over the coals when Harper was first indirectly elected. The then GG raised his arms in the air, as if in triumph upon Harper’s election. I thought his action then was misguided and inappropriate given his then role. In short, not exactly an enemy of the CPC nor a Liberal dupe. People are piling on here with an almost fatal case of selective political recall. And I thought only TRUDEAU Liberals did that…

    • Martin Dixon says:

      Some within the Conservative party have voted for and will continue to vote for Trudeau too. Despite the fact that his failings have always been clear. You are not making the case.

      • Martin,

        Yup, I voted Liberal in 2015 despite my reservations about the leader’s competence. Harper had gone too much to the right in that election for me. Read: Old Stock Canadians. I did not digest that one.

        But in the subsequent elections, I refused to vote Liberal. Didn’t agree with either Scheer or O’Toole so neither of them encouraged me to vote CPC. However, in the last election, I ended up voting CPC anyway because of the quality of our CPC MP (Deltell).

  16. Peter Williams says:

    Justice system Liberal style:
    – if the official won’t give you the ruling you want, replace the official
    – appoint a close friend to judge your actions.

  17. Some of the reasoning is insane. Trudeau is stonewalling on an inquiry because he knows it will probably take down his government. Come on, seriously, would Johnston, or anyone else, take this on in this context and reasonably expect to likely deliver a nothingburger? It boggles the mind. Johnston knows perfectly well that this is likely huge, far bigger than SNC so has to deliver, at minimum, a David Stockton woodshed moment. How has that fact escaped so many? This report must be prepared for the history books. It necessarily requires solid content and conclusions. Nothing else is even remotely possible. Johnston already gets that. He won’t be taken down by the shrapnel ricochet of the TRUDEAU Liberals.

Leave a Reply to Martin Dixon Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.