Przejdź do głównej zawartości


Today's threads (a thread)

Inside: UK publishers suing Google for $17.4b over rigged ad markets; and more!

Archived at: https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/06/stealing-money-not-content/

#Pluralistic

1/
A boardroom with a long table; executives are clustered around it in 1960s garb. The table's surface has been replaced with a 19th century edition of the Manchester Guardian. The back wall of the room has been redone in Google logo color stripes. One wall features a Google logo. In the middle of the table stands a cartoon mascot with white gloves and booties and the head of a grinning poop emoji. He is striped with the four colors of the Google logo.
This weekend (June 7–9), I'm in Amherst, New York to keynote the 25th Annual Media Ecology Association Convention and accept the Neil Postman Award for Career Achievement in Public Intellectual Activity:

https://media-ecology.org/convention

2/

Ostrzeżenie o treści: Long thread/3

Ostrzeżenie o treści: Long thread/4

Ostrzeżenie o treści: Long thread/6

Ostrzeżenie o treści: Long thread/7

Ostrzeżenie o treści: Long thread/8

Ostrzeżenie o treści: Long thread/9

Ostrzeżenie o treści: Long thread/10

Ostrzeżenie o treści: Long thread/11

Ostrzeżenie o treści: Long thread/12

Ostrzeżenie o treści: Long thread/eof

While the 2 suggestions (anti-trust on the full stack/ banning surveillance advertising) are worth doing in their own right, I don't think they actually address the fundamental problem. Google/FB, even stripped of those two things, are *absolutely massive*. These are probably not enough to fix the underlying problem.

I do think it's right about "must carry" being the wrong focus; but I think the goals of bargaining codes are closer than it gives credit 1/(2-3)
the goal of bargaining codes isn't "must carry", but rather "must pay". If FB has to pay say $1B regardless of the content, then it has no incentive/leverage to block news as it's now doing in Canada. It pays regardless. That said you could probably achieve the same result with Article5, but it's harder

(I think the article also underestimates strict scrutiny and/or common carrier laws to get around 1A. They're unlikely/problematic solutions, but it's not insurmountable) 2/2
@Arianity You've missed the point.

"Must pay" triggers boycotts, which leads to "must carry."

Regarding common carriers: online services are *not* common carriers.
(Sorry for the late reply, only just saw this).

Whether "must pay" triggers boycotts depends on it's structure. If you charge companies regardless of whether they remove news, it's no longer boycottable. It doesn't have to lead to 'must carry', that's an avoidable policy choice

Regarding CC: My point is not that they're currently CC, but that existing law would allow for reclassifying them in the future, and 1A wouldn't save them. 1A is not a reliable defense against it