I'm not sure why people here are defending GOOG so much.
Your assumption that traffic is generated by content (alone) is incorrect. Google is certainly profiting, but the news publisher will struggle to find readers without Google. It's a symbiotic relationship, but Google is doing the REAL work. If you don't believe that, build your own website and try to get people to read your content. Believe me, content doesn't matter as much as reach.
If you want to support Canadian news outlets, then go to their websites directly. Let's see them stand on their own without Google, and see who provides the most value.
This law will kill Canadian news outlets. No one pays for their content when there's a global ecosystem of stuff to subscribe to. That's capitalism. Good riddance.
I subscribe for a specialized publication that offers free articles because i find the publication useful.
I might be dumb but i can't understand how content matters less than reach. Without content, reach is useless. (and without reach, content is mostly useless as well..)
My take is that both are things of the past and using legal ways to fight for relevancy, each for different reasons. I don't have a horse in this race.
It sure doesn't seem to me like creating a link & giving people an extremely concise blurb that hopefully entices them to follow it is the content. As an individual I expect to be able to cite things in the world and to tell people how they can read it too. Legislating that basic right away feels like madness.
