Oregon lawmakers are currently considering legislation that seeks to require social media platforms to pay for content that news publishers voluntarily share on such platforms. However, the proposal does not recognize that news platforms voluntarily share content on social media platforms. Such a requirement risks online platforms being forced to restrict users and publishers from sharing news—which could lead to a less dynamic online environment.
A growing share of Americans increasingly rely on online media platforms for news content. While a user’s past reading history and algorithms, along with sponsored content, shape what news users view, online platforms do not post such content themselves. Instead, most news content on online platforms is shared either by third-party news organizations or by users themselves.
Oregon’s SB 686 appears to be based on the assumption that online platforms themselves post news content. Contrary to this assumption, news companies voluntarily share news themselves to promote content, expand readership, and generate revenue through advertisement.
The most likely outcome of forcing online platforms to pay for content that third-party news sources themselves share—on top of revenue that the latter receive from outbound links to news sites—is that many online platforms might restrict news platforms from sharing content on their platforms.
In recent years, Australia and Canada have passed similar laws that require online platforms to pay a negotiated percentage of funds to third-party news content. In Australia, Meta briefly blocked news content providers from sharing news, but eventually it and Google reached a deal with several Australian news companies. In response to the Canadian Online News Act, Google ultimately reached a deal with the Canadian government in which it pays $100 million annually to Canadian Journalism Collective, a collective of Canadian news organizations, which then distributes the amount to eligible organizations.
However, in the case of Meta, it banned news providers from sharing content—a ban that remains effective today. Such restrictions might be less consequential for the largest Canadian newspapers that already dominate the media market. However, they can significantly restrict the ability of smaller outlets to build their online presence and reach new audiences through expanded social media presence.
According to a report from the Media Ecosystem Observatory, Canadian news outlets have seen a decrease in overall social media news engagement by 43% between December 2023 and August 2024, reaching as high as 85% on Meta-owned Facebook and Instagram, which has not been compensated by corresponding increases on other platforms.
In the United States, the growing proliferation of state level laws introduces new risks. While Congress has not passed such a law, a growing number of states are contemplating such laws. Oregon’s recent proposal, for example, comes on top of similar proposals in California. If Oregon succeeds, it risks creating a template for many other states passing similar legislation—creating a patchwork of legislation that both online platforms and news providers will have to navigate. Such a patchwork could further increase the risks that online platforms will restrict news providers from sharing content on their platforms. While such restrictions would be a challenge to online platforms, the biggest losers will likely be consumers—who risk facing a less rich and dynamic online environment as a result of similar legislation.