View Full Version : Time to curtail Big Tech media
This excellent article https://nmc-mic.ca/2021/07/19/op-ed-time-for-canada-to-level-the-digital-playing-field/ explains clearly why journalism and newspapers are struggling to survive and why. It is using the Canadian scenario but applies around the world.
"Around the world, there is growing consensus that the dominant power of Big Tech must be reined in to prevent market failures.
In late June, Congressman David Cicilline, who chairs the Antitrust Subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives said, “Today, we have sent a clear message. The United States will no longer let other countries lead the fight against unregulated monopoly power.”
These market failures are having an impact on journalism, where the platforms divert about 80 per cent of advertising revenue from Canadian publishers. A U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation report found, “Although local journalism has faced numerous challenges adapting to the new media landscape, they are also confronting unfair practices by some of the largest technology companies in the world.”
Around the same time, Denmark became the first country in Europe to have media outlets come together to form a collective bargaining organization to negotiate with Google and Facebook. This approach is modelled on the music industry, where musicians can negotiate collectively with streaming services, such as Spotify.
Simply put, the Danish publishers are seeking fair value for the platforms use of content produced by their journalists. This approach seeks to end the ‘divide and conquer approach’ favoured by the platforms, whereby they negotiate with dominant players to set the standard for others to follow – something that does not benefit smaller publishers.
This week, the French Competition Authority slapped Google with a 500 million euro fine for not complying with the regulator’s order on conducting talks in good faith with France’s news media publishers. This was the largest fine in the French competition watchdog’s history for a failure to comply with one of its orders.
Australia passed a law in February, which was fiercely opposed by the U.S. tech giants. At one point, Facebook even blocked all news content to Australians on its platform, and Google threatened to remove its search engine from Australia – a warning shot to policymakers everywhere, including Canada...
News isn’t entertainment. As New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow wrote recently, “Democracies cannot survive without a common set of facts and a vibrant press to ferret them out and present them. Our democracy is in terrible danger. The only way that lies can flourish as they now do is because the press has been diminished in both scale and stature. Lies advance when truth is in retreat.”
So the “sustainable news ecosystem” will take the shape of journalistic cartels negotiating with platforms to provide “a common set of facts”? I don’t see that as an improvement. Sounds a little chilling, in fact. Sort of like teachers saying they will “teach students how to think”.
Democracies can survive without the likes of Charles Blow as gatekeepers of the truth.
Teaching students critical thinking skills is a bad idea?
Teaching students critical thinking skills is a bad idea?
The problem there is that the average public school teacher does not seem terribly well qualified in that area, and instead takes a more prescriptive approach based on the latest educational fad. Indoctrinating children is a bad idea. At best, they send students into the world spouting dogma and treating alternative viewpoints as frightening and dangerous.
OK, Idahl, having slammed the one approach, how do YOU, meaning you Idahl, suggest that Big Tech's power to suck the life out of all journalism alternatives be reduced? Don't simply disparaging one idea without offering a better approach or even an elementary alternative.
r
At present, journalists are paid by news media and they go where the stories are. Big Tech uses these reports and takes the advertising revenue away from the suppliers of the reports. When did Google and Facebook hire journalists to report from the northeast fires, Asia, the mid-East, Africa and pay the expenses involved in maintaining news networks?
BTW, let's not detour by slamming the journalists instead. Yes, there are good and bad just as in any other occupation.
catherine
7-22-21, 12:36pm
So the “sustainable news ecosystem” ...
I suspect you meant this phrase to be snarky because you followed it up with negative associations of attempts at fair play but I think "sustainable news ecosystem" is a great thing to aspire to. The whole world is an ecosystem, with balance and harmony among the elements to work for give and take. Growth in nature comes from harmony and when "competition" runs awry in nature, it doesn't bode well for the environment. And if you have an "invasive species," whether it's government, institution, or corporation that's too big, it tends to "crowd out" the other elements in the ecosystem and kill them off. That's why there are Anti-Trust laws.
As far as applying the metaphor to digital monopolies, there's no doubt that we haven't learned how to best adapt to it. See The Social Dilemma--the founders of Facebook, Google and Twitter all feel that there have been a lot of negative unintended consequences of the inculturation of these technologies. They don't even let their own kids go on these platforms. I'm not sure what the answer is, but the more avenues there are for disseminating facts, and the more diverse their audiences, the better off we are.
As for teaching critical thinking, we sorely need teachers who can teach children how to think--not what to think, but how to think. Values are imparted in the classroom--no getting around that. Do you think the values imparted at Choate are "better" than those imparted at your common public school?
I used to belong to an organization I really felt was important: ACME, which taught media literacy. It's mission:The Action Coalition for Media Education is an independently funded critical media literacy education network that teaches effective approaches to engage, challenge, and create media in ways that empower individuals and communities.. I think it's a really important mission.
Too much power and influence by any body needs to be checked.
ApatheticNoMore
7-22-21, 1:29pm
I can hardly see a problem with people (collective) bargaining to be compensated better for their work. And if that keeps more journalist in business, good.
OTOH free news will always have an advantage in the market over news you have to pay for right, regardless of quality. It's part of the problem, half of anything decent is behind a paywall (and no really almost noone is going to buy dozens of subscriptions just to get through all the paywalls, even less dozens of substack subscriptions lol, that is not practical). But no end of nonsense is free.
I don't know if anyone really knows at this point how to deal with what social media and the internet has caused. Many see the problem. I don't know if I tend to really interact with social media in the typical sense, I don't even use most of it, but to read twitter and then to seek out stuff mostly (or to watch dumb debates from the peanut gallery, not one of the better uses of time ... :))
The problem with critical thinking is I'm not sure there is much of an agreement on the definition. This is not some sort of "there is no truth", argument. I just mean I don't think there is much agreement on what the term means, that you could ask 100 different people, and get 100 different answers.
Democracies can survive without the likes of Charles Blow as gatekeepers of the truth.
They are also more likely to survive without the likes of the Texas legislature being gatekeepers of the truth. Our democracy will best survive if teachers are allowed to present a variety of viewpoints as well as tools for students to be able to debate with others to determine for themselves which viewpoint is most credible. I suppose that is more difficult for teachers these days as schools seem to be focused on teaching facts to be regurgitated on tests. I’m not sure that’s the fault of teachers as much as it is the fault of school boards and legislators.
My parents taught me critical thinking so how about putting the burden for that where it really belongs, the parents?
School was teaching me, (10,000 years ago, I admit;)), math, science, history, geography, language and such asking me to explore these subjects with fresh new eyes, asking questions and supporting seeking answers.
Since then I am told that teachers have become counsellors, social workers, food experts on dietary issues, and so many other roles for which few are fully prepared or funded.
ApatheticNoMore
7-22-21, 2:19pm
My parents taught me critical thinking so how about putting the burden for that where it really belongs, the parents?
I think I picked up some advantages there too, but my mom was an engineer with math and engineering degrees and loved puzzles of such sorts. So even if it's true, it's really hard to see it generalizing.
iris lilies
7-22-21, 3:15pm
I skimmed this opinion piece and couldn’t make sense of it. Then I tried to read it carefully, and I still don’t quite understand what solutions are being posited here.
The problem according to the op Ed writer is that Income for traditional journalism is dying and something needs to be done about it. Do I have that right?
“ Big Tech” should not be in the content producing business in these United States. If that’s what they are doing, regulate the hell out of them.
I can’t speak for other places in the world where standards for intellectual freedom are less respected and protected.
One of many side issues is the idea that journalism, respected traditional journalism, is killing itself because it’s no longer respected or objective. They need to look internally to solve that problem.
early morning
7-22-21, 4:19pm
"At best, they send students into the world spouting dogma and treating alternative viewpoints as frightening and dangerous." You spoke this about teachers, Ldahl, but the same is true of parents, and especially of religious schools. And most teachers do try to teach critical thinking skills, and are generally lambasted for it. Hence all that testing. Yes, parents SHOULD teach this skill, but many parents seem to not want their kids to think critically, as that leads to questioning of parental beliefs.
il - you commented that journalism is no longer respected or objective. I think, in many cases, you are right - but I think that we, as consumers of journalism, bear at LEAST as much responsibility for that as journalists do. As long as we, as a society, value money over all else, and as long as we want to be validated, not challenged, in our beliefs, journalism/ news media is going to find their profit in giving us what we want, and NOT what we really deserve.
I don't have any answers, but a discussion about reining in big tech media does seem warranted.
iris lilies
7-22-21, 4:23pm
My basic question is: what is big tech media?
Is Facebook “media? “ Is instagram “media?”
They were set up by Congress as tech platforms. They are not authorized to produce content.
ApatheticNoMore
7-22-21, 5:02pm
The distinction between producing and promoting content though, does it really matter? Why? I'm not sure why at least in terms of how these things tend to actually function (promoting content by algorithm right).
When your parents taught critical thinking, what did they teach? I mean my mom was big on logic games etc.. But, I don't even think that leads to questioning of parental beliefs, beliefs are values based.
They were set up by Congress as tech platforms. They are not authorized to produce content.
I agree, to my level of understanding, that this may have been their original plan.
If they were set up by Congress, does Congress have some means of managing them such an banking, etc? It seems that FB and Google agree that their present presence has grown way beyond the parameters originally envisioned by Congress but they have no interest in finding a way of managing this growth so as not to exclude their sources.
The question, to me, seems to be that platforms like FB and Google use info generated at considerable cost by other sources, such as news media, to attract public users to their platforms and sell advertising to those users as a result. The newspapers, as one example, pay the costs of production of info used by the platforms but with decreasing means of revenue from advertising which done increasingly on the platforms.
I think Big Tech platforms are like companies that use the internet highways for delivery and post large ads but pay none of the cost of the content on the highway that users want to see. Probably not a great example but the best that I can think of at present.
iris lilies
7-22-21, 5:20pm
I agree, to my level of understanding, that this may have been their original plan.
If they were set up by Congress, does Congress have some means of managing them such an banking, etc? It seems that FB and Google agree that their present presence has grown way beyond the parameters originally envisioned by Congress but they have no interest in finding a way of managing this growth so as not to exclude their sources.
The question, to me, seems to be that platforms like FB and Google use info generated at considerable cost by other sources, such as news media, to attract public users to their platforms and sell advertising to those users as a result. The newspapers, as one example, pay the costs of production of info used by the platforms but with decreasing means of revenue from advertising which done increasingly on the platforms.
I think Big Tech platforms are like companies that use the internet highways for delivery and post large ads but pay none of the cost of the content on the highway that users want to see. Probably not a great example but the best that I can think of at present.
Can you give three examples that I would see regularly of how big tech is using or stealing journalistic pieces?
They were set up by Congress as tech platforms. They are not authorized to produce content.
But they do control it.
iris lilies
7-22-21, 5:47pm
But they do control it.
yes they may be, so regulate the fk out of them.
I am not certain what you all are talking about because I sense it is different from my concerns. Is Facebook stealing ABC News’ content?
IL, what would you like to know about the north-east fires? Ask Google? Who is providing the info? It is not Google but other sources with no reimbursement. Google ads generate Google revenue alone.
What does the NASA say about drones and fire fighting water bombers? Ask Google? It is not Google who generates the info that you are looking at. Google gets all the revenue from the ads that you are seeing.
Which is the biggest grower of lilies today? Ask Google? It is not Google supplying the info but Google takes all the funding from the ads you see in your search.
I don't use FB although I have an account so will leave that to another person with more knowledge about FB.
I get Reuters and Al-Jazeera in my FB newsfeed, and there are probably others. I don't think there's undo influence from FB there, but you never know.
IL, what would you like to know about the north-east fires? Ask Google? Who is providing the info? It is not Google but other sources with no reimbursement. Google ads generate Google revenue alone.
What does the NASA say about drones and fire fighting water bombers? Ask Google? It is not Google who generates the info that you are looking at. Google gets all the revenue from the ads that you are seeing.
Which is the biggest grower of lilies today? Ask Google? It is not Google supplying the info but Google takes all the funding from the ads you see in your search.
I don't use FB although I have an account so will leave that to another person with more knowledge about FB.
I believe your Google examples are incorrect. Google simply directs you to the various news sources, they make their money selling and sharing ad space with those original content providers. They may exert a little influence in which content providers they direct you to and that's where Congress comes into the picture with their apparent belief they can legislate just about anything.
happystuff
7-22-21, 7:17pm
I believe your Google examples are incorrect. Google simply directs you to the various news sources, they make their money selling and sharing ad space with those original content providers. They may exert a little influence in which content providers they direct you to and that's where Congress comes into the picture with their apparent belief they can legislate just about anything.
Where a source or company or anything falls (i.e. in what order they are listed) on a Google search result page is also bought and paid for. Found that out back when I worked for the small online retail company. We had to pay to fall on the first page of a Google search for something like "where to buy blue suede shoes". (One also paid if one wanted a list of the most commonly search words! which supposedly varied over short periods of time, so companies would pay to have their ads reflect those words, etc.. It was all way more complicated and expensive than I ever imagined and not something a small company could afford with no guarantees of increased sales.) Internet searches, themselves, are a pretty big business/money maker.
Same thing - sort of - on Amazon. A search for "blue suede shoes" on Amazon resulted in this https://www.amazon.com/s?k=blue+suede+shoes&ref=nb_sb_noss_2
Notice the first is an Amazon Prime listing and second is a "sponsored" listing - paid for by the vendor.
My point here being that it's not just ads that pop up along side search results that are bought and sold, and Google does not just "simply direct".
We all know that I am no techie but my understanding is that the suppliers of info are asking Google to share the money made on ad space. Google would have no value on their ad space without the suppliers of the info to which they are directing the users.
iris lilies
7-22-21, 7:23pm
IL, what would you like to know about the north-east fires? Ask Google? Who is providing the info? It is not Google but other sources with no reimbursement. Google ads generate Google revenue alone.
What does the NASA say about drones and fire fighting water bombers? Ask Google? It is not Google who generates the info that you are looking at. Google gets all the revenue from the ads that you are seeing.
Which is the biggest grower of lilies today? Ask Google? It is not Google supplying the info but Google takes all the funding from the ads you see in your search.
I don't use FB although I have an account so will leave that to another person with more knowledge about FB.
I was Specific about asking you how you view this problem because I don’t understand it as framed in this discussion. Believe me, I think big tech is a problem, but not necessarily in the way that has been described here.
When I use Google and type in “biggest supplier of lily bulbs” Google presents me with a hit list of web sites. I honestly do not know how Google makes money at this point, but Judith’s (she is on a first name basis with every lily judge) The Lily Garden is the second site listed on the hitlist presented to me.
Hers is a company that produces a product. Do you think The Lily Garden actually pays Google? It might, I dont know. I do know that the science of website design includes gaming the Google algorithms to get companies higher in the hitlist.
This is not a good example of the opening topic, traditional news services losing money to Google.
OK, Idahl, having slammed the one approach, how do YOU, meaning you Idahl, suggest that Big Tech's power to suck the life out of all journalism alternatives be reduced? Don't simply disparaging one idea without offering a better approach or even an elementary alternative.
r
At present, journalists are paid by news media and they go where the stories are. Big Tech uses these reports and takes the advertising revenue away from the suppliers of the reports. When did Google and Facebook hire journalists to report from the northeast fires, Asia, the mid-East, Africa and pay the expenses involved in maintaining news networks?
BTW, let's not detour by slamming the journalists instead. Yes, there are good and bad just as in any other occupation.
I’m a free market guy, so I don’t think we need to do anything. Given time, some providers will survive and some fail as business models adapt. Journalists
like to portray themselves as sacred guardians of the truth, but they are as much a business as fast food.
Also, I’m a bit skeptical of the assertion that “Big Tech” is eating everyone’s lunch. They just make for a good bogeyman. Print journalism has been in decline for many years without much help from Mr Zuckerberg. Broadcast has fragmented from a small club into a million little pieces ever since cable, which is probably a good thing. I say let each segment of the market be free to inform or confirm biases as they see fit.
I don’t think it’s a great idea to look to government to regulate these platforms to the liking of every pressure group, political party or regnant cultural current. I especially don’t like government in the news business. Then you get foolishness like NPR attaching trigger warnings to the Declaration of Independence.
ApatheticNoMore
7-22-21, 7:26pm
Yea Amazon has become pretty much un-usable for most stuff at this point, due to low quality stuff being the first stuff listed. It used to be better, well yes it did, instead of just sponsored stuff you would see what others users had viewed/bought instead which usually led in much more promising directions. Plus you used to actually see name brand stuff, now it's random grab bag brand, or their own brand.
We all know that I am no techie but my understanding is that the suppliers of info are asking Google to share the money made on ad space. Google would have no value on their ad space without the suppliers of the info to which they are directing the users.
I believe Google Ad Sense ads on various web sites pay the content providers somewhere between 50 and 70 percent of the revenue generated by those ads.
That's why virtually every site on the internet has ads embedded in them, this one excepted of course.
happystuff
7-22-21, 8:12pm
I believe Google Ad Sense ads on various web sites pay the content providers somewhere between 50 and 70 percent of the revenue generated by those ads.
That's why virtually every site on the internet has ads embedded in them, this one excepted of course.
For which I am grateful! Thank you!
I believe Google Ad Sense ads on various web sites pay the content providers somewhere between 50 and 70 percent of the revenue generated by those ads.
That's why virtually every site on the internet has ads embedded in them, this one excepted of course.
That is info of which I was not aware. Thank you! I have Ad-blocker on my computer but not the iPad so have noticed the volume of ads on the iPad.
FWIW, I pay for the e-edition of the local paper plus an international paper and donate to the Guardian and Wikipedia so I don't expect news media or info for free either.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.