Dear editor:

I’m no fan of Pierre Poilievre: I think he’s trite, divisive and shallow.

But since we’re long past the expiry date of the Liberals, I’ll hold my nose and vote Conservative in the next federal election.

My criticism of your Aug. 15 editorial (“Poilievre is truly great — at pandering,“), though, isn’t that you flailed Poilievre, but rather that you misrepresent the business model of Google, Meta, etc. in your defence of the Online News Act.

It’s not only Google, for example, that benefits from surfacing Canadian media links in its search results. They do, of course, because of the ad revenue it generates for them.

However, what it surfaces, are headlines, with links to the articles on the publisher’s website. When a user clicked on those links, the website (e.g. Niagara Now) can make money by showing ads. Every time someone clicks a link surfaced through a Google search, the website that published the article can earn revenue.

Many media outlets are reporting that they’re losing a significant percentage of their web traffic and the ad dollars that went with it since the Facebook and Google bans. If Google, Facebook, et al., really were harming Canadian news media, shouldn’t their ban have made Canadian news media money?

Oh, but Google etc. make so much money, they can afford to pay. Is that the argument?

The financial straits of Canadian news media (specifically legacy print media) stems from the loss of classified ad revenue, so blame Craigslist or eBay, if you must.

Or better yet, do what all other businesses need to do. Adapt or perish.

Kevin Leicht
NOTL