Exactly this. The problem lies in the power to control expression lying in too few hands. Just having the same media system, but with the government directing who they ban is just passing the buck.
This is the same issue that faces newspapers, publishers and TV stations. At some point the scale of reach and influence come into conflict with public policy and governance.
Newspapers are horribly regulated and most TV stations can say what they like within reason - especially in the US where being fair and balanced is no longer a requirement to run a news service.
This jurisdictional problem affects all media and isn't just limited to social platforms.
The difference with TV and Newspapers is that they can have their licenses revoked. So there is a degree of power wielded by the government over what is acceptable locally.
In contrast, social media infringes on sovereign power by existing and influencing on a global scale without being regulated on a local one. A great example is name suppression during trials, it might be illegal for a newspaper in France to publish a name, but that doesn't stop one in the UK from doing it, and because the paper has a website, that foreign paper inadvertently breaks local law in France because anyone can look it up, but it can't be held accountable.
Sovereignty and global digital media do not intersect well without an interface - and that just doesn't exist.
Expect more balkanisation of the Internet in the future as govts take back some control over media within their borders.
And no, I'm not advocating for dictator-like suppression of free-speech, but a mechanism of accountability for foreign firms breaking local laws.
It's a shame that the real-world example has to be Trump, if this had happened to Malala, or Thunberg, or the Pope, the advocacy for oversight and accountability would be a lot easier to digest.
I'm not sure how to fix such without getting the gov't involved, except maybe splitting Big Media (BM) per anti-trust laws. Either you regulate BM by policing their speech filtering or you regulate them by splitting them. And splitting BM won't guarantee their smaller versions won't do the same thing.
Simply said, economics. This is a winner-takes-all problem, nothing short of banning US media and forcing creation of a local media industry will be able to do that.
I was born and raised in the West and can't help but agree with you.
"Freedom" as a universal, sacred concept is incompatible with psychologically validated, focus group tested mass marketing, let alone the individually tailored ML stuff that has started to come along in the past 10 years.
If anything, Government power needs to be expanded to combat corporate/political/media special interests. Not arbitrarily, of course, but it might be prudent to expand their power in a way that acts in the public interest - such as increased funding to public broadcasters or independent media watchdogs that can actually enforce journalistic standards with fines.
I'm generally for heavier regulation vs. rampant capitalism, but regulating what media companies can & can't do with their content isn't the answer. That feels like it'd be heading down the path to a state run media.
Your point is well taken, but I think what the previous poster was suggesting is some kind of ombudsman. I don't know that the idea is without merit, though as you point out it could be difficult to do in a way that preserved the freedom and independence of media.
Like I said, probably nothing can be done that isn't ultimately likely to be worse. Short of people spontaneously becoming smarter, you'd effectively have to outlaw news outlets deemed to be "too slanted", and even if you could do that (you can't), I'm not so naive as to think a government in control of the press would be in any way better.
Basically, it's all fucked, I guess would be my considered opinion. Democracy just doesn't work when half or more of the population can be trivially manipulated into believing anything you want them to believe.
And the only way to fix it is regulation — with teeth — of privately-owned public communications platforms. Does anyone see another way that could work?
So the large media organisations - who tend to rely on government cooperation to produce most of their content - have done exactly the same thing that they did every other time. That's barely even news.
Does anybody have a proposal for how this situation might be changed?
While I don't think there is anything wrong with this, the larger pattern of endlessly reacting to whatever content media decides to cover and banning it isn't exactly a good long term strategy.
I think that problem exists for any solution. Whoever funds the media is going to prefer information that supports their beliefs, whether that is governments or citizens or advertisers. Citizen funded media results in the least centralization of power, so is better imo.
Good point you’re making. There seems to be a symbiotic relationship really. News producers do get the short end of the stick though when it comes down to it.
I also think this particular government intervention is not helpful. But something akin to a shared revenue system might be an option?
Hahaha. Yes, the solution is more centralized control. More power concentration... less competition... There is alternative media for anyone who actually looks for it. We don't need to save the media. We need it to die.
The media is already effectively nationalized. What's needed are policies to end corporate influence.
When you have every newspaper, radio channel, and TV station owned by the same four or five companies who are running them as loss leaders to start wars and sell weapons, that's a major problem.
reply