Nick Clegg reiterates that Meta will end news content in Canada if C-18 passes and says he pulled out of a committee hearing after a session title changed
Clegg’s stance fits Meta’s broader pattern of treating politically charged platform decisions as formal policy processes; earlier coverage showed him defending the company’s timetable for reviewing its Trump suspension.Clegg’s defense of Meta’s review timetable
The Canada dispute moved from a warning to an announced plan to remove news after the Online News Act cleared Parliament.Meta’s subsequent plan to remove news in Canada That progression makes the threat consequential for both the bill’s leverage and news organizations’ distribution strategy.
First-order effects
Meta signals that Facebook and Instagram users in Canada could lose access to news content if C-18 becomes law, while Canadian publishers risk losing a major referral channel.
Clegg’s withdrawal from the hearing hardens the public confrontation, reducing the immediate scope for a committee process to resolve the disagreement.
Second-order effects
The threat increases pressure on Canadian policymakers to weigh compensation objectives against the prospect of reduced news distribution; Meta gains negotiating leverage by making withdrawal a credible option.
Publishers that depend on Meta for audience reach would need to shift attention toward direct distribution and alternative platforms if a block is implemented.
Third-order effects
If platforms repeatedly respond to news-compensation mandates by removing news, such laws may become tests of whether governments can impose bargaining obligations when platforms place limited strategic value on news links.
The episode points to a more transactional relationship between platforms and publishers, in which distribution access is no longer assumed to be a shared-interest arrangement.
The trend: News-compensation regulation is increasingly testing whether major platforms will pay for publisher content or instead exit news distribution in a market.
And also press on how whistleblower docs showed Facebook plotted to cause chaos in Australia by broadly blocking news and other critical information after the Senate vote but prior to becoming law. /3 https://twitter.com/...
Regarding the first tweet, the audio feed had a little bit more context as the Chair described Facebook witness's remarks as “quite inappropriate.” /8 https://twitter.com/...
And I'll end with an answer given to Facebook and Google's most dutiful shield on this committee. FB would like us to know their great concern with the #c18 legislation is that it could tie the fate of the news sector to Facebook and Google due to their revenue payments. 🤦🏻♂️/7 …
Canada continues to come prepared to ask fair and challenging questions. For instance, this reference to how FB's Zuckerberg aggressively pushed back on UK Parliament in 2018. ps are we to believe a FB lobbyist really learned the term, “astroturfing” during Google hearing? /2 htt…
Meta/Facebook has said this for months in light of Bill C-18. @pablorodriguez oddly assumed it was a bluff but reality now setting in: millions in planned benefits gone, existing business deals in jeopardy, and small media sites hit hard by its policies. https://twitter.com/...
Canada even asked about the “Jedi Blue” deal with Google which despite (or maybe because of) being in private and Justice Department lawsuits, Facebook apparently wants to deflect to Google. /4 https://twitter.com/...
Just in case anyone on Canadian Parliament thinks they actually answered one of your questions here, she quoted their revenues for all of North America which are already publicly available every quarter. /6 https://twitter.com/...
Meta is testifying before the Canadian parliament today. Kevin Chan's reprehensible arrogance for the Committee's actions and its questions is indicative of Facebook's modus operandi with governments: “company over country.” Chan isn't even supposed to be here, it should be Clegg…
@Chris_Bittle That's an interesting and important detail for anyone who reports on one of Facebook's most senior executives pulling out of the hearing today. Thanks for clarifying.
@mgeist ... I never understood exactly what leverage Rodriguez felt he had. No reason for Meta to accede to his ridiculous demand. And international implications of they did? U gotta wonder sometimes if any lights are on on there.....
This is absurd. Once again, Facebook skirts accountability by avoiding testimony under oath and cites *changes to the name of the hearing.* https://twitter.com/...
Facebook executives have shown contempt for democracies around the world. After senior Facebook executives ignored a subpoena and junior executives refused to answer difficult but important questions from lawmakers, they said the quiet part out loud. https://twitter.com/...
Have no idea what the context was or if he thought his mic was off, but Meta's Kevin Chan and Rachel Curran just faced qs from the heritage cmte on Meta's opposition to the online news bill. As soon as their testimony wraps, Chan turns to Curran and remarks: “So reprehensible.”
This hot mic moment after Facebook testified this morning will get the most attention but I'll paste a few other clips in this thread. /1 https://twitter.com/...
By the way, when Facebook says they don't “collect content from news websites,” please ask them about the pixels they've disclosed in discovery across over 8 million websites harvesting data to train their ad targeting which is 97% of their revenues. /5 https://twitter.com/...
I'm sorry Mr Chan, but Facebook's conduct around the world is reprehensible. Maybe next time, at least pretend to show respect to Members of Parliament - not just the Conservative MPs that lob softball questions.
Today, Meta announced that its President of Global Affairs won't testify before Canada's Parliament because lawmakers changed the hearing title to “Tech Giants' Current and Ongoing Use of Intimidation and Subversion Tactis to Evade Regulation in Canada and Across the World.” http…