“having another company eat the majority of the profit on content you create.” If they are summarizing and users don't need to click sure, but linking is a whole another level. If the media outlet can't survive with people ACTUALLY viewing the content on their site there is something wrong with the media outlets business.

According to Senator Peter Harder, the government expect Google and Meta to pay for as much as 30-35% of the news expenditures of Canadian news outlets as a result of Bill C-18. When the 25% labour journalism tax credit is added to the mix, that is as much as 60% of the costs of Canadian news covered by either the government or two foreign companies. Do you believe that is a healthy, sustainable approach?

So you have one company funding another to top them off to 60% of their costs covered?

During the Senate hearings, smaller Canadian media outlets such as Village Media warned that they would be forced to shut down due to Bill C-18 if Meta and Google exit the news market. Other such as Le Devoir cited data indicating that 70% of their website traffic comes from search and social media. How did you account for these risks? What do you say to Canadian media outlets who may be forced to shut down due to your legislation?

So if 70% of a sites traffic is coming from people actually clicking through Google and Facebook what are we solving for?

Long and short I would be very OK with the law demanding compensation for summaries but NOT for linking.. Linking is fundamental to discovering content and is essentially the phone book problem.

FB and Google DON'T get much value out of just a link.. Hence why they are SO willing to just turn it off.

Taking FB and Google out of the picture and assuming the internet had no search..

How would anyone find these media outlets? A list? ok if a list why would that list want to include news sites if it had to pay to include them?

Do you use an ad blocker? Do you go to news sites ? If so maybe YOU are the reason they are going out of business?