The doctrine of mutually assured destruction — which arose in the 1960s as part of the global debate about the present danger of nuclear war — suggests that two opponents who are powerful enough to destroy each other will likely avoid conflict to ensure their mutual survival. One can only hope the world’s social media companies, and the most prominent news organizations, are familiar with the concept.
For many years now, governments in many countries have been sparring with the giants of technology and social media — Meta (parent of Facebook and Instagram) and Google in particular — to find a larger and more reliable revenue stream to support news organizations.
In short, traditional business models that sustained news organizations have been eviscerated by digital media, where the giants of the sector operate with a virtual monopoly that sucks up nearly 80 per cent of all money spent on digital advertising worldwide. Recognizing the important role that news organizations play in the fabric of democracy, governments have pressed social media companies to pay more for the news content that circulates on their platforms.
The latest conflict surrounds Bill C-18, the Online News Act, which would force social media companies to negotiate more and better deals for the traditional news content they share on their platforms. (Chris Ratcliffe / Bloomberg News photo).
Although these battles have taken the combatants right up to the edge of mutually assured destruction, cooler heads always seem to prevail. However, there is always a chance that at some point, someone will do something really stupid.
The latest conflict surrounds Bill C-18, the Online News Act, which would force social media companies to negotiate more and better deals for the traditional news content they share on their platforms. It is expected to clear the Senate before Parliament breaks for the summer, and head toward proclamation.
The companies argue they already support Canadian news through things like the Google News Showcase, which pays modest sums to news organizations that agree to post there. They also claim the bill would massively inflate the amount of that support.
As a result, both Google and Meta recently threatened to block Canadian news content from their platforms if the bill is enacted without changes.
At this point, you should ask how a fight between governments and social media companies could qualify as a form of mutually assured destruction?
Many Canadians implicitly understand the damage that could be done to news organizations if they could no longer use social media to drive readers to their content.
This week, executives from some of country’s largest news organizations described the possible exclusion from social media as an existential threat that would erode both readership/viewership and what little digital advertising money they earn now.
However, what’s at risk for the tech companies?
Although different social media platforms have different purposes, a significant quantity of social media content is either postings made directly by journalists and news organizations, or by users reacting to news stories.
The tech companies regularly claim less than 10 per cent of all traffic involves news. And yet, social media is acknowledged as one of the most important tools for the distribution and consumption of news. Depending on the source, anywhere from one-third to half of all adults use social media to get their news.
Depending on the source, anywhere from one-third to half of all adults use social media to get their news.
Put another way, most of us have come to rely on the fact that social media includes news. By various estimates, somewhere around 75 per cent of Facebook users identify messaging friends and family as their No. 1 use. However, close to 60 per cent say they use Facebook to keep up on current events.
So, even if the amount of content is small, the interest it has for social media users is quite high. And in that equation, we find a reasonable amount of peril for the companies that operate the platform.
It’s also important to note that many social media companies are struggling to increase their audience. Facebook, in particular, is fighting against stagnating subscriber numbers; over the site’s total number of users has grown substantially in the last 10 years but has been steady at just under three billion for the last three years.
There is enough evidence to make the case that both news organizations and social media companies are co-dependent. News is a popular feature on social media and given that Facebook and Google don’t create news content, they obviously have an interest in making sure someone else can.
How do we get beyond the standoff?
The smart money would say that Google and Meta are bluffing about cutting news out of the feeds Canadians receive. The companies tried a similar strategy in Australia, where news content was stripped from Google and Facebook in February 2022 for eight days.
The Australian government held firm, and the tech companies relented and struck deals to pay news organizations.
The question is whether the level of support demanded by Bill C-18 is so much bigger than what they’re providing right now that the companies are willing to edge closer to destruction.
As long as both sides are willing to acknowledge their co-dependence, everything will work out. Unless they forget about words like co-dependence. And then things will get ugly.
Dan Lett
Columnist
Born and raised in and around Toronto, Dan Lett came to Winnipeg in 1986, less than a year out of journalism school with a lifelong dream to be a newspaper reporter.
