I'll use the newsstand analogy that just came up in the last round of questions.
Imagine that the newsstand industry in Canada was owned by one company with a 90% market share. They took 80 cents out of every dollar of advertising that went to every newspaper that put their paper in that newsstand, but in order to reach audiences, they have to be in the newsstand. That's a partnership of a sort, but one that is incredibly exploitative.
I also think it's ironic to hear Google say that agreements they make behind closed doors with news publishers are commercial licensing agreements, but when those same commercial licensing agreements are mandated by law, they are link taxes. This is the kind of doublespeak that you don't often hear from partners.