Meta’s stance reflects its response to a wave of regulatory proposals around the world aimed at bolstering the struggling news industry by requiring social media platforms to negotiate deals with news outlets for content shared on their platforms. Over the years, traditional news publishers have lost important sources of revenue while tech companies like Facebook and Google have become the main beneficiaries of the digital advertising market.
In response, media advocates are pushing a set of bills that would force Silicon Valley giants to share more of their revenue with publishers, arguing that the companies benefit from the content paid for by those news outlet to make. Tech companies have opposed those proposals, saying they fail to consider the value their platforms provide to news outlets by distributing their content.
In recent years, Meta has threatened to pull news from its platforms in protest of similar proposals in Australia and Canada. The law was eventually passed in Australia and is credited with directing an estimated $130 million annually to news outlets from Meta and Google. Canada’s proposal is still under consideration.
Lawmakers in Washington DC dropped a measure last year that would have created a temporary carve-out of antitrust law to allow publishers to come together to negotiate with tech giants about distributing their content after Meta said to “consider removing the news from our platform” if it passes.
The California bill calls for big tech companies to pay a “journalism use fee” when they run ads next to news content. The bill would also require publishers to spend most of the money they receive through the law to hire and retain journalists.
Meta spokesman Andy Stone said in a Tweet that the bill would primarily benefit out-of-state media companies “under the guise of helping California publishers.”
“The bill fails to recognize that publishers and broadcasters put their content on our platform themselves and that the massive consolidation of the local news industry in California came 15 years ago, before Facebook is widely used,” Stone wrote.
The bill was sponsored by Assembly member Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), who has proposed several bills targeting tech giants, including a bill signed last year that requires tech companies to review their products for potential harm to children before being rolled out. except them. NetChoice, a trade group that counts Meta, Amazon and other tech companies as members, sued to block the measure, arguing it was unconstitutional. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.)
“This threat from Meta is a fear tactic that they have tried to spread, unsuccessfully, in every country that has tried it,” Wicks said in a statement. “It’s appalling that one of the richest companies in the world would rather silence journalists than face regulation.”
The bill cleared two key state committee votes, and a vote on the measure in the Assembly is expected Thursday, Wicks’ office said.
“The bigger picture here is that banning publisher content is going to be a lose-lose situation for Facebook and for publishers,” said Jasmine Enberg, an analyst who covers social media for analytics firm Insider. Intelligence. “Despite what Meta said, the news generated a ton of engagement for Facebook in particular, which drove in ad dollars.”
Meta’s threat comes at a time of economic weakness for both internet platforms and media outlets that rely on advertising dollars. Rising inflation, new privacy rules from Apple and slowing demand for e-commerce products have hurt the digital marketing industry in recent months.
Meta, facing increasingly competitive social media markets, has cut more than 20,000 jobs, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has warned that the company could face tough economic challenges in the future. years. Last month, BuzzFeed News announced it was shutting down, citing declining advertising and “a technology recession.” Other outlets like NPR and CNN are also laying off workers.
If California enforces the law and Meta follows through on its threat, it will mark the first time the company has blocked news content in the US
