Google and Facebook want a Senate commission in the US to reward newspapers for carrying their news. A equal division of the money produced would improve the standard of news and promote democracy.
An presumption sometimes made in industry is that all those who produce it are equally distributed the benefits of value creation. In the global domain of news contact, which has come to demonstrate an impressive asymmetry in media reach and therefore pricing force, that this is not always so is glaringly clear.
As the news collection and fact-validation market remains both expensive and extremely decentralised (and competitive), internet networks such as Google and Facebook monopolise distribution mechanisms.
The latter’s grip on eyeballs has led them to roll in advertisement sales by a billion, even as news publishers battle hunger. Among the first to wake up to the danger presented by the effect of Big Tech on what people get to know is Australian politicians.
Now, a US Senate panel report, released on Tuesday, has called for arming America’s Federal Trade Commission with the authority to shield news media organizations from what looks like a tech rampage.
It suggests a market-sharing mechanism based on the established formula of the television industry, in which cable and satellite TV providers pay channels for their goods. This is eminently reasonable for the sake of trustworthy reporting.
The study of the commission, released by Democratic Party senators as US Major Tech companies face Congressional investigation for other suspected violations of their power, accused Facebook and Google of “hijacking” the local news business of America by scrapping the material generated by others to make tremendous profits without paying for it.
Facebook flatly dismissed this accusation as “simply not accurate,” while Google protested that the study “distorts the truth of the role of Google in the online news ecosystem” and overlooks the additional influence it offers publishers.
Facebook flatly dismissed this accusation as “simply not accurate,” while Google protested that the study “distorts the truth of the role of Google in the online news ecosystem” and overlooks the additional influence it offers publishers. Observers who label demonstrators as Luddites of an online transition may be likely to comply. Having news fed by smartphones as an unavoidable part of everyday life has become trendy. But let us not get swept away by the comfort of customers.
it soaks up investment and costs operating capital. It is not only important for a well-informed democracy to churn out high-quality content .
Copyright law serves as an opportunity for the development of quality information, and by presenting news as a free resource, technology outlets abuse the intent. If they do not do so in writing, it is just that in most jurisdictions this legislation has to be revised in the internet age.
When Sundar Pichai of Google recently said that the business would set aside $1 billion over three years to pay for the content of others, it potentially amounted to an acknowledgment that its production warranted compensation.
The consumption of Facebook and Google will overshadow the global newspaper market, put at $140 billion in 2019, on existing trends, within a few short years. If Democrats gain a Senate majority, the US is more likely to throw its weight behind the proposal, while its wider attempt to crack down on Big Tech in general and social media in particular has bipartisan support. if the environment wants a diversity of voices, then lopsided influence must not be permitted to squash anyone invested in a civic quest for the facts to prevail for democracy to perform the miracles in human liberation .