It’s been two years since Meta blocked news links in Canada. Two years of data. Two years of adaptation. Two years of lessons for publishers everywhere—including Australia.

I spent time last month talking to Canadian publishers and analysts about what’s actually happened since the ban. The results are more nuanced than either side’s talking points suggest.

A Quick Refresher

In August 2023, Meta blocked news links on Facebook and Instagram in Canada in response to the Online News Act, which would have required them to compensate publishers for news content. Canadian users can’t share news links; Canadian news organizations can’t post to their Facebook pages.

Australia, of course, has its own News Media Bargaining Code, which led to deals rather than a ban. The contrast is instructive.

What Happened to Traffic

The first question everyone asks: how badly did traffic suffer?

The honest answer: it was significant but not catastrophic.

Canadian publishers report that Facebook referral traffic dropped to essentially zero. Before the ban, many publishers got 20-30% of their traffic from Meta platforms. That disappeared overnight.

But here’s the interesting part: total traffic didn’t drop by 20-30%.

What happened instead:

• Some traffic migrated to other platforms (Google, direct, X)
• Some users started visiting sites directly
• Some traffic genuinely disappeared
• Some publishers found new distribution channels

The net traffic impact varied by publisher. Larger organizations with strong brands weathered it better. Smaller publishers, particularly local ones, struggled more.

The Subscriber Effect

Several Canadian publishers told me something unexpected: subscriber growth actually increased after the ban.

The theory: when news isn’t free-flowing through social media, people who want it subscribe. The friction of losing easy access converted casual readers into paying subscribers.

This wasn’t uniform. Publishers with strong subscription offerings saw gains. Those without subscription products or with weak value propositions didn’t benefit.

The lesson: subscription models become more important when distribution platforms stop distributing.

What Canadian Publishers Did

The adaptation strategies I observed:

Direct audience building. Email newsletters became even more critical. Publishers who’d invested in email before the ban were better positioned. Those who hadn’t scrambled to catch up.

Alternative platforms. Some publishers invested heavily in X (then Twitter), LinkedIn, or newer platforms like Threads. The effectiveness varied by audience and content type.

SEO intensification. With Meta gone, Google became even more important. Publishers doubled down on search optimization—though as I wrote recently, Google’s AI Overviews now threaten that channel too.

Community engagement. Some publishers shifted toward community events, local presence, and direct engagement. Physical connection became a competitive advantage.

New partnerships. Publishers explored relationships with aggregators, AI platforms, and alternative distribution channels they’d previously ignored.

The Money Question

Did publishers lose revenue? This is complicated.

Direct Meta advertising by publishers (promoting their own content) stopped, saving some money. But so did the traffic that advertising drove.

For publishers heavily dependent on programmatic advertising, less traffic meant less revenue. For those with subscription models or diversified revenue, the impact was more manageable.

The Canadian government established a fund to support journalism, partially compensating for lost Meta traffic. Whether this is sustainable long-term remains unclear.

Lessons for Australia

Australia’s situation differs from Canada’s. We have a functioning bargaining code, and Meta is paying publishers rather than blocking them. But the lessons still apply:

Platform dependency is dangerous. Whether platforms pay you or block you, they control your access to audiences. Building owned channels—email, apps, direct visitors—reduces this vulnerability.

Subscription matters more than ever. Publishers with strong subscription businesses weathered Canada’s ban better. The same will be true for any future platform disruption in Australia.

Diversification isn’t optional. Revenue diversification, traffic diversification, platform diversification—all of these are protective strategies, not nice-to-haves.

Smaller publishers are more vulnerable. Local and regional publishers without sophisticated digital operations suffered more in Canada. In Australia, the bargaining code negotiations already showed similar dynamics—big publishers got deals, smaller ones struggled.

What Could Happen Here

Could Meta ban news in Australia too?

It’s not impossible. The bargaining code negotiations were contentious, and the deals will need renewal. If Meta decides Australian news isn’t worth the cost, they could pull the plug as they did in Canada.

More likely is gradual deprioritization. Meta has been reducing news visibility in feeds for years. The algorithm increasingly favors entertainment over information. This slow fade may matter more than a dramatic ban.

Preparing for Uncertainty

Whatever happens with Meta, publishers should assume platform relationships will change. The preparation playbook:

Build email aggressively. Every reader you can reach directly is one you don’t lose when platforms change policies.

Invest in distinctive content. Commodity content is vulnerable to both AI synthesis and platform deprioritization. Unique content has more staying power.

Develop technical capabilities. Understanding how platforms work, how AI affects distribution, and how to adapt technically matters. Media companies working with Team400 are developing more sophisticated approaches to platform dynamics.

Create community connection. Readers who feel connected to your organization—through events, membership, interaction—are more likely to seek you out regardless of platform changes.

Plan for scenarios. What would you do if Meta traffic dropped to zero? Having a plan before you need it is better than scrambling.

The Bigger Picture

The Canadian experience reveals a fundamental truth: news organizations don’t control their distribution.

For decades, newspapers controlled distribution—they owned the printing presses and delivery trucks. Digital disruption ended that control, and we’ve spent two decades trying to recover.

Platforms offered distribution at scale, but it was always borrowed. They can take it away whenever they choose, whether for competitive reasons (as with AI Overviews), regulatory response (as in Canada), or strategic shifts (as with reduced news prioritization).

The sustainable path forward doesn’t involve regaining control of distribution—that’s probably impossible. It involves building direct relationships strong enough to survive distribution changes.

The View from Here

Two years after Canada’s news ban, the sky hasn’t fallen. Publishers adapted. Some thrived; some struggled. Life continued.

But the experience should serve as a warning. Platform relationships are transactional, not partnerships. Publishers who forget this get reminded painfully.

If you’re an Australian publisher, ask yourself: could we survive a Meta ban? If the honest answer is no, you have work to do.

Some of that work is strategic—building subscriptions, diversifying traffic, strengthening community. Some is technical—understanding platforms and AI systems well enough to adapt. An AI consultancy can help with the technical side, but the strategic vision has to come from within.

Canada’s experience isn’t a prediction of Australia’s future. But it’s a reminder that futures can change quickly, and preparation beats reaction.

---

I’d love to hear from Australian publishers about their contingency planning. How prepared are you for major platform changes?