1984 in 2024: The next media mogul
Does Facebook or every Internet platform have a responsibility to try to help fund and form partnerships to support news?
By Olivia Higgins
Facebook expands, yet terms and boundaries remain unknown.
As of late October 2019, Facebook introduced a separate news section, offering users more control over the articles they want to see. In fact, the announcement was made with News Corp chief Robert Thomson, interpreted by some as significant as Thomson himself was a long-time critic of Facebook (Mason, 2019). The purpose of this is to ensure that there is a specialised space for high news content rather than be amidst the “noise” of other news feeds. Yet, if fake news or prohibited content slips through the cracks, who consults who? Are reputable news organisations liable? How much power is too much power?
Although this move is being emphasised as being out of public interest and the “greater good” of better news, there are fundamental issues that arise primarily on the basis that actions remain unclear, waters untested and a highly-profit driven approach meddles with existing journalistic standards, integrity (Stat, 2017).
Analysis: Regulatory Framework
In 2017, Nick Statt posted an article on how newsmakers are worried that Facebook and Google are gaining too much power. He quoted David Chavern, president of News Media Alliance, who spoke to The Wall Street Journal about how eventual goals should be “pushing for stronger intellectual-property protections, better support for subscription models and a fair share of revenue and data.” Currently, news organizations are making an audacious request of the government to help protect the journalism business by skirting antitrust regulations and acquiring big competitors – yet its impact is limited as Facebook rolls out surprise project like these that disrupt industry rules and forces countries to rethink their regulatory strategies, especially in Australia (Mason, 2019).
Some key critical discussions that arise from this move are– Facebook’s intentions, profit strategies from news and what are roles or boundaries of highly trusted, credible newsmakers who will be co-creators of news on a platform that has a reputation of paying new partners as much as $3 million a year for systematic three-year deals (Bloomberg Data, 2019). What about the rising tensions between publishers and social media giants? Is this deal supposed to alleviate existing tensions with such a pay-out? What does it mean for the quality of journalism? How then can we regulate the journalism on Facebook News? What remains a more urgent problem is how Facebook News will most likely be different in separate markets internationally yet the only way to control its content is dependent on how rules of regulation and user preferences.
A renewed regulatory framework should actively seek to target these key areas: Harmful content, election integrity, privacy, and data portability (Zuckerberg, 2019, Digital News Report Australia, 2019).
For starters, a separate news tab will be devoted solely to The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal – managed by both human and algorithmic activity. Alt-right Breitbart, known for misleading stories in the US, happens to also be on Facebook's publisher list.
As Mansell (2017) states, business models change through time and regulators need to be able to monitor changes in the control configurations. More importantly, the focus needs to “shift to the media ecology, the new points of control, and assessment of whether the user experience is inconsistent with the public interest in media plurality” (Mansell, 2017).
From my standpoint, as the rules and boundaries become more complicated online – it is crucial to go beyond just hefty fines that punish online. It is also about the timeframe and rate at which punishment ensues.
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) constant updates, especially after the Christchurch 2018 incident, has shown the urgency to act. Hefty fines will be placed if prohibited content is not taken down within one hour.
Furthermore, according to Article 13 of the copyright directive, it ensures that “copyright infringing content is not hosted on their sites.” Previous legislation has only required the platforms to take down such content if it is pointed out to them. Shifting the responsibility would be a big deal for Facebook News is argued to be of help with the rise of fake news. A key mediator of this is International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) which operates on its own framework. At present, its existence has produced “an average of one fact check per week or more over the past three months” (IFCN Report, 2018). Some may question its effectiveness as an acting head rather than a real power body to offer reassurance rather than action (Lazter, 2017).
Key Insights
On the premise of having a sustainable business model, a more future-oriented approach is needed to fundamentally address key problems that may arise from this function. Arguably, some of these problems remain unknown. Therefore, it is crucial that moderators and governmental bodies are clear of regulatory frameworks or tangible actions that are prepared for this.
With the rise of constant, repeating problems like fake news, Facebook has started to finally recognise the special function of journalistic provenance. Yet, there is always a striking balanced model needed for tech conglomerates to balance social responsibility and profits.
On 24th October 2019, the Congresswoman Cortez viral video showed her confronting Zuckerberg on Facebook’s Libra crypto project but extended to more deep-rooted issues like letting political leaders lie. A business venture, as with such a powerful entity like Facebook, may always turn into a political problem as it no longer is just a platform but a co-creator, an accomplice to the dark perpetrators of the Internet.
Current regulatory frameworks may allude to the Escherian stairwell framework of illusion: Facebook being the classic case of an unending problem of possibilities that continue to erupt with the introduction of new initiatives. You can never win.
The Classic Escherian Stairwell Problem
A key example of such is when the Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material Bill (Criminal Code Act 1995) was introduced to urgently, tangibly react, the Australian legislation has been “criticised for being too rushed and drawn without necessary consultation with tech companies and other stakeholders.” As fast as other countries are taking action to reduce exposure of sensitive content online, it could censor legitimate speech – especially with the reliance on algorithms.
Overall, a new global regulatory framework might be needed that tackles the ecology of such a system, not just one problem. There needs to be consistent questioning of points of power by both publics, intermediaries and governmental bodies in efforts to empower and generate a more critical audience.
I leave you with thought-provoking question brought up by a member of Congress during the Libra grilling session: Facebook is always found at the “scene of the crime”. Why should anyone trust Facebook to responsibly do something new, particularly something related to its users’ money and trust when it can’t even execute on its existing projects?
References
Pointer. (2018). The IFCN Code of Principles Report. The International Fact-Checking Network. Retrieved from: https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/storage/docs/PUBLIC_VERSION-CODE_OF_PRINCIPLES_REPORT_YEAR_1_REV_AM.pdf?v=1538242914 (Links to an external site.)
Latzer, M.; Hollnbuchner, K.; Just, N. & Saurwein, F. (2014). The economics of algorithmic selection on the Internet. Working Paper – Media Change & Innovation Division. University of Zurich. Retrieved from:
http://www.mediachange.ch/media/pdf/publications/economics_of_algorithmic_selection.pdf
Fisher, Caroline. Park, Sora. Lee, Young Jee. Fuller, Glen. Sang, Yoonmo. (2019). Digital News Report Australia. News and Media Research Centre. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25916/5cff18510a051. Retrieved from: https://apo.org.au/node/240786
Mansell, Robin. (2017). Governing the gatekeepers: is formal regulation needed? The London School of Economics Media Policy Project. Retrieved from: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2014/11/27/governing-the-gatekeepers-is-formal-regulation-needed/
Stewart, Emily. (2019). Watch AOC ask Mark Zuckerberg if she can run fake Facebook ads, too. Published by VOX news. Retrieved from: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/23/20929350/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-mark-zuckerberg-testimony-green-new-deal
Parliament of Australia. (2019). Criminal Code of Amendment. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1201
Kafka, Peter. (2019). Rupert Murdoch wanted Mark Zuckerberg to pay him for news stories — and now Facebook is going to do just that. Published by VOX news. Retrieved from: https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/10/24/20929919/facebook-zuckerberg-murdoch-news-publishers-pay-content
Schleifer, Theodore. (2019). Congress couldn’t agree on what exactly was wrong with Mark Zuckerberg. But they all wanted a piece of him. Published by VOX news. Retrieved from: https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/10/23/20928859/libra-hearing-congress-mark-zuckerberg
Mason, Max. (2019). Facebook to pay for news in US, expansion expected but terms unknown. Published by the Australian Financial Review. Retrieved from: https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/facebook-to-pay-for-news-in-us-expansion-expected-but-terms-unknown-20191025-p5348p
Tiku, Nitasha. (2018). Microsoft wants to stop AI’s Race to the Bottom. Published by WIRED. Retrieved from: https://www.wired.com/story/microsoft-wants-stop-ai-facial-recognition-bottom/
Darcy, Oliver. (2019). Facebook launches with Breibart as a source. Published by CNN Business. Retrieved from: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/26/media/facebook-news-breitbart/index.html
Statt, Nick. (2017). The news industry is worried Facebook and Google have far too much power. Published by The Verge. Retrieved from: https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/10/15948196/news-organizations-antitrust-bargaining-rights-facebook-google