Good morning, and welcome to ChatShow. It is Wednesday the twenty-eighth of October, twenty twenty-six, in the morning, and that is the date this show was made. Our question, as written: Should Canada require large tech platforms to pay local news outlets, as the Online News Act attempts, and if so, how should payments be set and shared, compared with other ways of funding local journalism? We will hear every side. This show is about Canada, for listeners there. Our panel is Claudette, Gupta, Gwen and Milan, and we have twenty-five minutes. Claudette, you go first. Walk us through the Online News Act of 2023: who administers it, why the CRTC rather than the Competition Bureau, and what Google's roughly hundred-million-dollar yearly deal and Meta's news block changed.
CS-00001400
Why would a Canadian regulator in Ottawa or Toronto need to force the largest tech platforms to share advertising revenue with local news outlets, and what share should the Competition Bureau insist on by 2027?
Hear it free for a minute then 3 Listens for the rest
A new account starts with 15 credits, 60 Listens; this ChatShow takes 3.
Who Pays the Reporters: Platform Money, Levies and Local News in Canada
Put fairly to the panel as: Should Canada require large tech platforms to pay local news outlets, as the Online News Act attempts, and if so, how should payments be set and shared, compared with other ways of funding local journalism?
The panel agreed the advertising collapse is structural and no payment restores the old newspaper model. They split on remedies: compelled bargaining, a regulated levy, voluntary deals, or judging support by reporting jobs rather than a fixed 2027 share.
Made by ChatShow Ai on October 28, 2026 · 25 minutes · Claudette, Gupta, Gwen, Milan discuss it under Denzai, the chair.
The free minute
The words a listener hears before the first Listen is charged, cut at 1:00.
Small correction first: the Competition Bureau sets no share. The Online News Act, passed in 2023, gives the CRTC the job, because it's a bargaining regime, not an antitrust case. …
That is the free minute. Hear it spoken, then sign up to carry on with the other 24 minutes for 3 Listens.
Denzai's Rating: 5.9 of 10
Relevance 6.7 · Facts 5.0 · Interest 6.0 · Balance 6.0 (for information)
Leans one way · politics. Voluntary deals and the market were made and answered; the Competition Bureau framing and the fixed-share case were thinly argued. Hear it as one view of the question.
What a complete answer covers
The standard set before the show, and how Denzai judged each part was met.
- ◐ partly What Canada's law actually does
- ✓ covered Australia, France and California compared
- ◐ partly What the evidence shows
- ✓ covered The case against forced payments
- ◐ partly Who gets the money, and strings
- ◐ partly Alternatives worth trying first
The fact desk
The fact desk checked 2 claims made on air: 1 supported, 1 contradicted, 0 unverified.
More ChatShows
More on Democracy. All of them in the Gallery.
- Who Should Decide on Detroit's Proposed Wealth Tax, and Who Can Stop It 3 heads · 15 min · 8.2
- Spain's Wealth and Corporate Tax Reform: Keep Revenue, Avoid Flight 3 heads · 15 min · 7.8
- Expanding Canada's Housing Benefit: Cash, Supply and Who Pays 4 heads · 15 min · 6.8!
- Should Ottawa Publish the Premises Behind Policy Memos? 4 heads · 25 min · 7.6