We already went though this in Australia. It was a negotiating tactic, where they blocked news for a while before reaching a deal to pay news companies.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-23/facebook-reverses-new...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-23/facebook-reverses-new...
Forcing either party to give up their agency seems wrong (like France saying Facebook has to pay and can't just leave the news content sharing market if the price is too high).
Is this a typo? Did the French government really say Facebook CAN'T leave the 'news content sharing market'?
> "The provider may not promote the removal of journalistic content made available in order to exempt themselves from the obligation referred to in this article, except for the cases provided for in this Law, or by court order specific."
If Facebook simply shuts down the ability to post all external links for the Brazilian site, then that could plausibly fall outside.
The law, as written, will only ever apply to Facebook, and will only ever result in money going to Murdoch. It's really impressive.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/26/abc-does-deals...
Although in that article they are supposedly going to "make new and significant investments in regional services", today it seems they are back to cutting.