SOCIAL
Journalism organizations battle Big Tech for survival

What a tangled web we weave.
That’s likely been a thought that’s reverberated many times through the halls of power in Ottawa this summer. In June, the federal government passed the Online News Act that would compel tech companies to negotiate with news organizations for financial remuneration for news content shared on their platforms.
Meta and Google have not taken kindly to having their exorbitant profits be put in the crosshairs by the Trudeau government. Since the bill’s passing, this so-called “digital duopoly” has responded by ratcheting up their corporate communications threat-o-meters to DEFCON 1 levels, saying that they will soon prevent Canadians from accessing news content on their platforms.
There’s a chilling and dystopian irony to this whole standoff. For years, the corporate communicators at these major tech companies have spouted lofty rhetoric about the critical role their platforms play in promoting democracy and supporting journalism by building an informed and engaged public.
And yet, seemingly overnight, these tech companies have decided to quickly pivot and set fire to this long-held corporate talking point when confronted by the threat of having to engage in a fair negotiation with news organizations and a smidge of democratic oversight.
Would tech players actually follow through on their threats to limit an entire nation’s access to information simply to get their way? To appropriate the thoughts of Prime Minister Trudeau the First, the answer appears to be: “Just watch us.”
Publishers, for their part, are not taking this lightly, either. Nor should they. A coalition of news organizations formally called on Canada’s Competition Bureau to investigate Meta’s allegedly “anti-competitive conduct” by blocking access to news on its platforms and for its unwillingness to negotiate.
While this process likely won’t help break any impasse in this stare-down, the filing emphasizes two important realities.
First, the status quo has become untenable and the rules of the game need to change if Canadians want to have long-term access to accurate and quality information to help them make important decisions about how they live their lives.
While this high-stakes chess match between the feds, #Meta and #Google continues to unfold over the coming weeks, writes @Brent_T_Jolly, a parallel societal discussion will likely help to determine the success or failure of #BillC18 #cdnpoli
Second, Canadians are going to have to act, sooner or later, to break their dependency on social media and begin the painstaking process of redrawing the fractured boundaries of our public sphere.
After a decade and a half of hemorrhaging cash, many news organizations in Canada today are operating on the precipice of collapse. During that time, hundreds of news outlets have shuttered and thousands of journalists have been furloughed.
While it has become a fact that many large news organizations around the world have been slow to adapt to a burgeoning digital world, it also underscores the complicated and uneven relationship that has existed between tech platforms and journalism for quite some time, too.
Let’s follow the money.
Once upon a time, money from advertising was used by news organizations to bankroll their editorial operations. Whether it was your local member of Parliament advertising their latest community barbecue or the flower shop down the street letting you know that your favourite white roses are on sale this week, spreading the word has become synonymous with posting, sharing and engaging with content on tech platforms like Facebook or Instagram.
In Canada, it is now estimated that anywhere between 70 to 80 per cent of advertising dollars have been hoovered up by tech companies. News organizations, which previously invested those dollars to cover the costs of reporter salaries and costly public-interest investigations, have been left to pick up the scraps.
Right now you might be thinking: “Sure, that’s all true, but it’s not 1996 anymore, either. The world has changed.” And to that observation, you certainly have a point.
Since those early days of the internet, tech companies emerged as advertising and content-curating behemoths on the premise that they could provide advertisers or news organizations with an exponentially larger audience for materials published on their platforms.
The benefit for news organizations in this equation was based on the theory that social platforms would help direct more traffic to publisher’s websites, which would help offset the loss of revenue from more traditional sources of advertising.
To the untrained eye or ear, it’s a sales pitch not without merit. To that end, it shouldn’t come as a giant surprise that it’s an argument tech platforms, and critics of the Online News Act, have repeatedly cited as a backstop to democratic oversight.
The problems with this argument only grow by the day. As those in the journalism industry have learned all too well, time has proven that the pitch from tech platforms has turned Canada’s information marketplace into a tangled mess, largely because it was premised on the fraught and much-maligned notion of trickle-down economics.
Perhaps more important, however, is understanding this standoff is based on more than correcting for past mistakes by getting Google and Meta to pay news organizations for links and posts. Without question, it’s an important factor in shaping the future of Canada’s journalistic and information ecosystem — but it’s also just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Around the world, these foreign and unaccountable social media companies have been discreetly scooping up humanity’s collective knowledge; every news story, video, social media post, song, drawing or research paper in the public domain to train their artificial intelligence (AI) models in return for a yet-untold financial benefit.
Now, this isn’t to say the Online News Act is a perfectly crafted piece of legislation. As many observers have noted, there are still important details to be worked out to ensure this legislation is implemented fairly, equitably and transparently.
But what Big Tech’s Canadian case study shows the world pretty clearly right now is that they are proving unwilling to comply with the laws of our land and, even worse, limit the nation’s access to information rather than put future revenue opportunities under threat.
At this point, Canadians would benefit from reflecting on two questions. First, why should tech platforms be exempt from paying for content that feeds their algorithms and helps their bottom line? It’s no state secret that radio stations pay to play songs. Broadcast news organizations buy video to use in newscasts and newspapers pay writers for their words and photographers for their photos.
Second, why do we allow these platforms to play such an outsized role in our social lives? You don’t have to look very far to read some of the voluminous ink that has been spilled decrying the changes implemented by Elon Musk to X, the platform formally known as Twitter. And that’s not to mention the examples of unchecked extremism, veiled or overt threats, mindless epithets, and other ad-hominem attacks that belie the toxicity that metastasizes on these platforms.
While tech platforms have become ubiquitous parts of our daily lives, their convenience and dopamine-induced stupor must be balanced against the negative impact they’ve had in controlling the ebbs and flows of information that have slowly eroded the connective tissues that bind many of our communities together.
In the early 1960s, famed American essayist Arthur Miller stated, “A good newspaper, I suppose, is a nation talking to itself.” While the world has certainly changed leaps and bounds since then, his overarching message, that quality journalism is a key ingredient to help make democracy work, still holds true.
While this high-stakes game of chess continues to unfold over the coming weeks, a parallel societal discussion will likely help to determine the success or failure of this legislative and regulatory exercise. We all must better scrutinize the power platforms play in our society and how they shape our decisions. We must also determine how they should be held accountable for their actions when utopian promises go awry.
Without a doubt, it’s a complicated clash of ideas that, if heeded, will likely mean changing many of our daily habits, behaviours and routines. At the same time, given the fractures clearly displayed in our social discourse, it’s an exercise that should have sparked our imaginations, and those of our legislators, long before now.
Brent Jolly is the president of the Canadian Association of Journalists.
SOCIAL
Is this X’s (formerly Twitter) final goodbye to big advertisers? It looks like it

It looks like big advertisers are leaving X (formerly Twitter) for good and its owner Elon Musk couldn’t care less.
In the packed DealBook conference in New York on Wednesday, he bluntly told them to shove it.
This response came after another round of advertisers including IBM, Apple, CNN and Disney bailed on his social network after Musk seemingly supported an antisemitic conspiracy theory last month by responding to an X user’s post — a move he’s since admitted was silly and apologized for. Musk was less remorseful over the uproar caused among advertisers, telling the room: “This advertising boycott is going to kill the company… let’s see how Earth responds to that.”
For many large marketers, this marks the end of a drawn-out farewell (lasting a whopping 13 months) to advertising on X since Musk took over. Surprisingly, even some of X’s own staff members are now calling it quits. Freelance journalist Claire Atkinson reported a “wave of resignations” from CEO Linda Yaccarino’s sales team, including a few of the remaining ad executives who were there before she officially joined in June. Musk’s actions are essentially reversing any recent progress made in reviving X’s advertising business.
Lou Paskalis, CEO and founder of AJL Advisory confirmed that Musk’s comments were indeed another extra nail in the already well sealed coffin because it reaffirmed what most large advertisers already know — Musk resents having to be beholden to them.
“He is trying to position their legitimate brand suitability concerns, largely precipitated by his ongoing antics on X, as a vast, left-wing conspiracy among advertisers to ‘blackmail’ him into constraining his right to free speech,” Paskalis said. “As someone who spent over three decades in the ad buying business, it’s laughable to think that we could all act with that level of coordination, presumably in secret.”
This event highlights how out of touch Musk is with what keeps his company running. He takes an ad boycott as a personal insult when, truthfully, it’s just part and parcel of managing a platform these days. Look at how often YouTube and Meta have dealt with similar issues over the years. The difference? The bigwigs at those companies prioritized protecting their businesses, not their public personas, and were willing to make compromises to win back advertisers. Not that it took much to win back those ad dollars — advertisers rely on those platforms as much as the platforms rely on them.
“It’s just a very sensible decision not to continue advertising on that platform which poses such a strong brand safety risk,” said Ebiquity’s chief strategy officer Ruben Schreurs. “To do all this on stage is unheard of, I’ve never seen anything like it before.”
The largest advertisers seem to agree. Unlike their previous boycotts of advertising on X, this one is permanent for many of them. Some of the most active accounts like Disney, Paramount, Liongsate and Sony Pictures haven’t posted in nearly two weeks. This chimes with what one senior ad exec, who had been in touch with a number of X’s advertisers over the past year, told Digiday last month. Advertisers who had continued to spend on the platform only paid a fraction of what they used to prior to Musk, out of fear of getting called out by Musk if they didn’t.
“It’s easier to pull advertising than it is to return, and what makes the X ad boycott unique is that it isn’t primarily about content adjacency or moderation,” said Jasmine Enberg, principal analyst, social media at Insider Intelligence. “Advertisers are concerned about the reputational damage and the uncertainty of doing business with Musk, and yesterday’s comments will deepen the rift between them.”
An impossible job has now become even more challenging for Yaccarino. Ad dollars weren’t exactly flowing into the social network before Musk’s latest rant. X has averaged a 55% year-over-year revenue decline, according to Guideline. This figure increased to 61% YOY between May and August 2023 — despite Yaccarino joining the company during the summer.
“The hill she [Yaccarino] must climb to rekindle advertiser demand for the platform just went from steep to vertical,” said Paskalis. “I don’t know how anyone could overcome a direct verbal assault of the magnitude that Musk delivered at the DealBook conference against a customer base already alarmed by his previous rage inducing, divisive and dog whistle laden tweets. None of this will cause Linda to leave, in my opinion, as she sees quitting as failure and failure is not an option in her calculus, no matter what damage may be done to her reputation.”
X did not respond to Digiday’s request for comment.
SOCIAL
YouTube Adds New Analytics Cards, Simplifies its ‘Product Drops’ Feature

YouTube’s making some updates to its Product Drops feature within live streams, while it’s also adding some new analytics cards, and testing a new format for its TV app.
First off, on Product Drops. YouTube’s changing the requirements for Product Drops in live streams so that more creators will be able to include drops to highlight their items.
Up till now, Product Drops have only been available to creators who’ve connected their Shopify stores, or have access to Google Merchant Center, while creators have also had to plan Product Drops in advance, and schedule them via Live Control Room. But now, YouTube’s giving more creators more ways to access the feature.
As per YouTube:
“Any creators who have connected to their first party stores, or are participating in the YouTube Affiliate Program can set up Product Drops in the live control room on YouTube. This means that more creators will be able to use Product Drops to boost sales and engagement on their live streams.”
YouTube will also now enable creators to implement Product Drops at any time during a live stream, eliminating the pre-planned requirement.
“This will give creators more flexibility to react to the moment, and drive excitement in real time.”
YouTube says that many creators have seen good response to their Product Drops, with the interactive, engaging process helping to drive hype, and spark more response from viewers.
Product Drops are available via the Live Control Room in YouTube Studio. You can read more about how they work here.
YouTube’s also updating its Community Posts creation flow, in order to simplify the process, and ideally get more channels posting text-based updated in the app.
Community Posts remain a lesser element, though YouTube’s been working to make them a bigger focus throughout the year, by adding additional engagement elements like polls, quizzes, disappearing updates, and more.
Simplifying the creation process is another step in boosting awareness, and potentially driving more interaction with you YouTube audience.
YouTube’s also adding some new revenue analytics cards, including “Total Members” insights (which includes subscriber data) and “Where Members Joined From”, which will provide more insight into what’s driving channel growth.
YouTube’s also adding new data on why users have canceled their membership within the insights tab in YouTube Analytics.

As you can see in this example, the new card will show the reasons why people have opted to stop their subscription to your channel, based on responses provided in the cancellation flow.
Finally, YouTube’s also experimenting with a new format for its TV app, which will make it easier to access different elements.

As you can see in this example, shared by 9t05Google, the new format will include bigger buttons to access different elements, and further customize your YouTube experience on the bigger screen.
Connected TV is the fastest growing viewer segment for YouTube, with more and more people now looking to consume YouTube content on their home TV set. As such, it makes sense for YouTube to roll out more updates aligned with big screen viewing in order to feed into this usage.
Some handy updates, across various elements, which are worth noting as you go about managing your YouTube presence.
SOCIAL
Musk regrets controversial post but won’t bow to advertiser ‘blackmail’

Elon Musk’s comments at the New York Times’ Dealbook conference drew a shocked silence – Copyright GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP Slaven Vlasic
Elon Musk apologized Wednesday for endorsing a social media post widely seen as anti-Semitic, but accused advertisers who are turning away from his social media platform X of “blackmail” and said anyone who does so can “go fuck yourself.”
The remark before corporate executives at the New York Times’ Dealbook conference drew a shocked silence.
Earlier, Musk had apologized for what he called “literally the worst and dumbest post that I’ve ever done.”
In a comment on X, formerly Twitter, Musk on November 15 called a post “the actual truth” that said Jewish communities advocated a “dialectical hatred against whites,” which was criticized as echoing longtime conspiracy theory among White supremacists.
The statement prompted a flood of departures from X of major advertisers, including Apple, Disney, Comcast and IBM who criticized Musk for anti-semitism.
“I’m sorry for that tweet or post,” Musk said Wednesday. “It was foolish of me.”
He told interviewer Andrew Ross Sorkin that his post had been misinterpreted and that he had sought to clarify the remark in subsequent posts to the thread.
But Musk also said he wouldn’t be beholden to pressure from advertisers.
“If somebody’s gonna try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money?” Musk said. “Go fuck yourself.”
But the billionaire acknowledged that there were business implications to the advertiser actions.
“If the company fails… it will fail because of an advertiser boycott” Musk said. “And that will be what will bankrupt the company.”
Musk, who met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a visit to Israel earlier this week, insisted in the interview that he holds no discrimination against Jews, calling himself “philo-Semitic,” or an admirer of Judaism.
During the interview, Musk wore a necklace given to him by a parent of an Israeli hostage taken in the Hamas attack on October 7. The necklace reads, “Bring Them Home.”
Musk told Sorkin that the Israel trip had been planned earlier and was not an “apology tour” related to the controversial tweet.
-
FACEBOOK6 days ago
Indian Government Warns Facebook, YouTube About Deepfakes, Misinformation Violations
-
MARKETING5 days ago
Whiteboard Friday Recap 2023: AI Edition
-
MARKETING6 days ago
Making the Most of Electronic Resumes (Pro Tips and Tricks)
-
SEO3 days ago
Google Discusses Fixing 404 Errors From Inbound Links
-
SEARCHENGINES6 days ago
No Estimate To Share For Completion Of Google November Core & Reviews Updates
-
SEARCHENGINES4 days ago
Google Merchant Center Automatically Creating Promotions
-
MARKETING5 days ago
3 Questions About AI in Content: What? So What? Now What?
-
SEO6 days ago
Google On Traffic Metric & SEO