Globo, Meta and Google attrition is an obstacle to internet law – 04/02/2023 – Power

A tussle between Globo, Google and Meta over the funding of journalism is the main obstacle to bill 2630, known as PL das Fake News, a priority of the Lula government.

The Executive sent last Thursday (30) to the PL’s rapporteur, Deputy Orlando Silva (PC do B-SP), a proposal for a substitute that makes the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet more flexible by providing for punishment of platforms for anti-democratic content.

Although the punishment of big techs is the most thorny issue in the law, remuneration for journalistic content by platforms is what generates the most division.

Globo and the major media vehicles defend a model similar to that implemented in Australia in 2021, of direct negotiation with platforms for payment of content.

Fenaj (National Federation of Journalists) and Ajor (Association of Digital Journalism), which brings together independent vehicles and fact-checkers, propose a fund to encourage journalism based on the taxation of big techs. The Executive’s text establishes payment of copyrights for journalistic content alongside music, videos and others. And the big techs think that the “bottom” is the “least worst” solution.

Financing journalism is a priority for Globo, which pressed for the issue to be included in the legislation.

The Australian News Media Bargaining Code determines that vehicles negotiate individually or collectively with platforms the payment for journalistic content. If they cannot reach an agreement, arbitration is envisaged.

The premise is that internet platforms unduly profit from journalistic content and should pay for it. The background is the crisis of the traditional media business model. The rise of the internet has financially stifled publishers, as platforms take most of the online ad revenue.

Platforms oppose the bargaining code. When it was adopted in Australia in 2021, Facebook even blocked news sharing on the platform for a week. Google had threatened to shut down the search engine in the country.

Fenaj and Ajor are against this direct negotiation, which would favor larger vehicles, such as Globo, which have more firepower.

“We saw what happened in Australia and France, with the bargaining code: this generated millionaire agreements with large media groups, and smaller, specialized or local groups were left out or received a small change there”, says Natália Viana, president of Ajor .

“No one knows how much was paid, because there are confidentiality agreements and no one knows if the amount is being used to pay journalists. And if all the money is going to the CEOs?.”

In fact, in Australia, the biggest beneficiary was the giant News Corp, owned by billionaire Rupert Murdoch, which closed a three-year deal estimated at US$ 150 million.

But Rod Sims, former chairman of the Consumer and Competition Commission of Australia, published a report showing that nearly all of Australia’s licensed media outlets have closed deals with Facebook and Google, including smaller ones, with publications employing 85% of journalists. Australians.

According to him, Country Press Australia, which brings together 160 small and regional publications, received one of the highest values ​​per journalist employed. He calculated that the code generated about $200 million a year in payments from platforms to publications.

Canada is debating a similar bill in parliament.

In Brazil, Fenaj and Ajor defend a fund to finance journalism based on the taxation of big techs, although the two differ on the details.

Fenaj prepared two draft bills proposing a fund inspired by the Audiovisual Sectorial Fund, with multisectoral management and policies to benefit minority media, news deserts, inclusive journalism, media education, black journalists, quilombolas, indigenous peoples, women and LGBTQIA+.

“Article 38 [negociação direta] transfers power from the digital giants to the broadcasting giants, and does not benefit journalists or small vehicles”, says Samira de Castro, president of Fenaj.

The fund would win votes from the most left wing in the Chamber, but, according to leaders, it would hardly get enough support.

Natália Viana, president of Ajor, says that funds to support journalism have been created in countries like Austria, Italy, Holland, Norway and Canada and are part of a public policy that seeks to encourage journalism in search of new sources, formats and sustainability projects.

In the view of the platforms, the fund would be the least worse solution, because it would offer greater predictability of how much they will have to pay. But also because the values ​​would probably be lower.

While Fenaj and Ajor argue that taxes on big techs would be on revenue, some platforms want the taxation to be only on revenue from ads in journalistic content – ​​which represent the minority.

In the case of smaller media, including checking agencies, there is one more factor – many of them depend on funding from Google and Facebook and fear losing part of these resources if direct negotiation or payment of copyrights is approved.

Journalism associations are also mostly financed by big techs – 70% of Ajor’s funding comes from Google, Meta and TikTok, and 80% of Abraji’s resources.

The ANJ (National Association of Newspapers) and Globo oppose the creation of a fund to remunerate journalism.

For the ANJ, it is reckless. “What if an autocratic government assumes? Even with multisectoral management, it is naive to think that this fund would not be instrumentalized for ideological purposes by governments”, says Marcelo Rech, executive president of the entity.

“And the government can always contingency fund resources.”

In addition, a fund would probably yield a smaller volume of resources for large vehicles. Representatives of the mainstream media believe that a fund could be created to implement specific public policies, but this would not replace remuneration for content.

Under pressure from the Ministry of Culture and entities representing artists, the federal government’s proposal provides for payment of copyrights in general, but was rejected by all sectors and does not have the support of leaders in the Chamber.

It would be something in line with what Europe did with the digital copyright directive in 2021, which provides for platforms to pay copyrights to journalists, authors and vehicles in collective bargaining. The criticism is that the model benefits large vehicles, but not journalists and smaller media.

“Copyright opens a gigantic discussion that does not lead anywhere, it benefits those who want to procrastinate”, says Rech, from ANJ.

Smaller media and part of civil society point out that the two models, copyright and direct negotiation, favor content that generates clicks and engagement.

“This can encourage celebrity journalism, click-hunting, and not public interest journalism, investigative, with pluralism”, says Francisco Brito Cruz, executive director of the Internet Lab, which defends a fund. “And, in fact, if the faucet on the platforms turns off, a lot of small vehicles will be left in the rain.”

When contacted, Meta (owner of Facebook) indicated that the company’s global view on funding journalism is in the title document: “New study shows that the news industry reaps considerable economic advantages from Facebook”.

In the midst of the dispute, the idea of ​​enacting a generic proposal in the law is gaining strength, that journalistic content should be remunerated, and provide for subsequent regulation. It would be a way of guaranteeing the approval of the law with the changes in the Marco Civil and in online advertising, priorities for Globo and advertising agencies.

Ajor also believes that the priority is to include remuneration in the project.

“The fundamental thing now is to consolidate in the law the mandatory payment of platforms to journalism”, says Viana.

The platforms, however, see this as a “catch” — in the regulation, by decree, several “turtles”, as themes unrelated to the original project are known.

---

UNDERSTAND WHAT IS UNDER DEBATE:

What is the debate about the regulation of social networks? Under the impact of the coup acts of January 8, the Lula government created a proposal that obliges networks to remove content that violates the Democratic State Law, with incitement to a coup, and a fine if there is widespread non-compliance with obligations. The Executive forwarded the proposal to deputy Orlando Silva (PC do B-SP), rapporteur for PL 2630, the so-called PL for Fake News, who will discuss the text with leaders in the Chamber.

What is the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet? It is a law with rights and duties for the use of the internet in the country. Article 19 of the framework exempts platforms from liability for damages generated by third-party content, that is, they are only subject to paying compensation, for example, if they do not comply with a court order of removal. The constitutionality of article 19 is questioned in the STF.

What is the discussion about the article 19? The rule was passed with a view to ensuring freedom of expression. One justification is that networks would be encouraged to remove legitimate content for fear of being held accountable. On the other hand, critics say the rule discourages companies from tackling harmful content.

The government’s proposal impacts the Marco Civil?The understanding is that the project to be included in the bill of fake news makes one more exception in the Marco Civil. Today, companies are required to remove non-consensual nude images even before court orders and copyright violations. The government wants scamming content to also become an exception to the immunity granted by law, but companies would not be subject to fines if one or another violating content was found on the platform, only if there is widespread non-compliance.

How does it work in other countries?

• USA:The legislation makes platforms immune to third-party content, and does not hold companies accountable if content is removed in good faith. Projects and actions in court discuss expanding the responsibility of platforms

• European Union:The block’s directive establishes that networks can only be held responsible if they do not act after a complaint. The digital services law, effective as of this month, maintains this immunity, but establishes obligations for platforms, such as transparency reports, and demonstration of removed content.

• UK:Companies cannot be held accountable for damages caused by third-party content. A proposal establishes that platforms must guarantee the application of their own terms of use, and the right of users to appeal against moderation decisions

And where does funding for journalism come in?
The fake news PL provided for direct negotiation between media vehicles and big techs for remuneration for journalistic content, in a mechanism similar to that implemented in Australia in 2021. The measure is defended by Globo and large media companies. But the Executive’s proposal stipulates that journalistic content would enter into a copyright payment scheme like music, videos and films.

Fenaj and smaller media outlets reject both ideas and propose the creation of a fund, based on the taxation of big techs, to mainly encourage journalism of public interest, plural, of minority groups. The idea is not embraced by the mainstream media. The platforms oppose direct trading and copyright, and some companies admit the creation of a fund.