SOCIAL MEDIA FAANGS 2019

Rather than posting multiple blogs, I'll gather new events/points in this hub post. The clear theme is an EU-led backlash against the wild west non-regulation of the web giants (FAANGS: Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google, Spotify), though US lawmakers won't necessarily be fooled by the millions being spent by FAANGS lobbyists to convince them this is a conspiracy against US business by a jealous EU which failed to produce companies/apps that appeal globally.

SOME FAQS/THEMES

Will there be statutory regulation?
Yes, its already happening: GDPR; Germany will enforce $20m fines if hate speech isn't removed within 24 hours, and it + France are leading the way on taxing the tax-dodging giants. Apple has already been forced by the EU to pay the Irish government €13bn in back-tax.

Will the FAANGS conglomerates be forced to break-up into smaller companies?
Probably, but the timescale is uncertain. EU pressure will be a factor, but it will be US regulators/politicians who ultimately decide if, like the film industry back in 1948 (Hollywood giants were forced to sell off their cinema holdings), they legally form monopolies and therefore competition + consumer protection law insists they must become smaller. The FAANGS are spending $millions to persuade US lawmakers that the EU are trying to undermine USA dominance, and that any attack on them is bad for the USA.

However, with deregulation being the long-term trend ever since Reagan back in 1980 (same for the UK from 1979 when Thatcher was elected, two very right-wing, 'free market' politicians), the film industry may actually see its anti-trust laws scrapped in 2019! Right-wing governments (eg Trump/Republicans, May/Tories) are reluctant to regulate the 'free market'.

The right-wing press may also be very free market, but they do frequently campaign for tighter regulation of other media (just not the press), which will add pressure to right-wing politicians to act.


Are children (+ how they are monetised) a factor?
Absolutely!!!
Protection of children, arguably even more than protection of democracy, is a (the?) key driver behind media regulation. The age rating system (film, games), TV watershed, multiple clauses in the press industry's Editors' Code, much of the ASA's policymaking, all are dominated or even defined by protection of children. The ASA's ruling that apps must not contain gambling if they're accessible to kids is just the start of what promises to be a tough EU-led fightback against the non-regulated, wild west approach of the 'digital gangsters' of new media.

Phone hacking was a scandal to Guardian readers until the Milly Dowler case broke, and within weeks the highest-selling Sunday paper was closed and a multi-year formal commission (Leveson) was set up to investigate newspaper malpractice, while the self-regulator, PCC, scrapped itself and announced IPSO would replace it.

Expect Facebook and Google/YouTube's lax age controls to become a major issue.

The non-regulated monetising of freemium apps (Lara Croft Go, Kim Kardashian's Hollywood) and vlogging social influencers like Zoella is already facing restrictions.




2019 STORIES

...

FACEBOOK + SOCIAL MEDIA TO GET STATUTORY REGULATION? UK MPs CALL FACEBOOK 'DIGITAL GANGSTERS'
Read more on the Feb 2019 'digital gangsters' statement + call for statutory regulation, which was quickly backed by the Labour party (but the Tories are unlikely to agree).

A 'digital gangster'? UK MPs are furious with Zuckerberg

Facebook (and Google/YouTube) are facing ever growing scrutiny over their (mis)use of user data and facilitation of anti-democratic forces (in US presidential election, Brexit vote, spreading of anti-vaccine ideas, etc). They have grown into vast global conglomerates with little or no formal regulation.

GDPR, laws passed within the EU to insist on minimal standards of privacy and registration of user data, was an early sign of this wild west era ending, though the lobbyists (PR, campaigners) employed by the FAANGS have successfully argued to US politicians that this is the EU trying to damage American business.

There remains the distinct possibility, though, that US regulators will get tough on them. Facebook is facing multi-billion fines for misuse of user data, which could lead to a re-think on regulation there.

ANTITRUST REGULATION Should new media giants be broken up?

Google, Facebook not playing by the rules, News Corp tells ACCC

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/may/04/google-facebook-not-playing-by-the-rules-news-corp-tells-accc?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

TERMINOLOGY - very useful neologism/mnemonic below: GAFA...

UPDATE: MURDOCH'S FOX RAIDED BY EU ANTI-TRUST AUTHORITY OVER SPORTS RIGHTS
The Murdoch press enjoys a dominant market position in the UK with no hint of any regulatory action (unless left-wing Labour leader wins the next election) from government or the self-'regulator' IPSO. Yet his corporation's handling of sport rights once more sees clear evidence of the tough regulatory environment for broadcast media compared to 'print' media.
Guardian: 21st Century Fox's London office raided in market abuse inquiry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A useful primer, including a quote from Adam Smith, on the history of and current clamour for enforcement of antitrust laws.

In a nutshell these exist to combat market dominance by single companies (or colluding cartels), seen as to the detriment of customers.

Elliot, the Guardian Economics editor, references historical cases of oil, and 1980s action on AT+T (US equivalent of BT in the UK or Post in Luxembourg), but he could also have referenced action against a forerunner of the modern cinema big six, forced to vertically DE-integrate before gradual deregulation allowed this dominance to return.

Microsoft were desperate for Apple to survive during its 90s crises, as it helped put off antitrust action against them.

Elliot cites the GAFA crew, Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, but Comcast and Disney also are worthy of such consideration as they clamber above even global media barons such as Murdoch, who faces Disney buying his film empire and Comcast his prized TV empire.

(See Guardian article, Is it time to break up the tech giants such as Facebook?, for more on this)

The argument goes like this. Data is as vital to the modern digital economy as oil was a century ago. The tech giants have the same sort of monopoly power that Standard Oil once had (Google and Facebook accounted for two-thirds of online advertising spending in the US last year and Amazon was responsible for 75% of online book sales). Mark Zuckerberg might wear chinos rather than the top hat sported by Rockefeller but a robber baron is a robber baron. It is time for anti-trust legislation to be used to break up Facebook, Google and Amazon.

The charge sheet is a long one: the tech giants are exploiting their monopoly power to stifle competition; they are spreading fake news; their fantastically rich owners portray themselves as right-on yet go to a great deal of trouble to minimise their corporate tax bills; they are ripping the heart out of communities through the closure of bricks-and-mortar retailers. To the list can now be added (in Facebook’s case) the harvesting of the personal data of 50 million Americans and its use for political purposes. 

No question, Big Tech is more vulnerable to a backlash from Washington than it has ever been. Companies have outgrown management systems that were not designed for systemically important businesses and have used their market power to gobble up rivals. It is this charge – that the disruptive startup companies of yesteryear are today’s anti-capitalists – that creates the biggest risk of anti-trust action.

SOCIAL MEDIA MPs consider law to make Facebook etc liable in abuse cases

Again, newspaper owners are campaigning for the likes of Facebook (which profits from their content while passing back minimal revenue; is sucking vital ad revenue away from them; changes their newsfeed algorithms periodically, often losing newspapers large proportions of online readers as a result with no means for them to protest or influence this)
Guardian: Make Facebook liable for content, says report on UK election intimidation.

Theresa May should consider the introduction of two new laws to deter the intimidation of MPs during elections and force social media firms to monitor illegal content, an influential committee has said.

The independent Committee on Standards in Public Life, which advises the prime minister on ethics, has called for the introduction within a year of a new specific offence in electoral law to halt widespread abuse when voters go to the polls.
The watchdog will recommend another law to shift the liability for illegal content on to social media firms such as Facebook and Google, a legal change which will be easier once Britain leaves the European Union.
Both changes form part of the hard-hitting conclusions of an inquiry into intimidation experienced by parliamentary candidates in this year’s election campaign.
Other recommendations include:

• Social media firms should make decisions quickly to take down intimidatory content.

• Political parties should, by December 2018, draw up a joint code of conduct on intimidatory behaviour during election campaigns.
  
• The National Police Chiefs’ Council should ensure that police are trained to investigate offences committed through social media.
  
• Ministers should bring forward rules so that council candidates will no longer be required to release their home addresses.

Walled, walled web and hidden censorship

The notion of the wild, wild web gets ever weaker. Regulation of the web is largely privatised, down to the whims and ideology of sites.

We should think of the walled, walled web, especially Facebook, but the policies of major social media, which seek to keep users in and on their site as long as possible, thus sucking out maximum data and advertising revenue, are the major de facto web regulator - and their supposed commitment to free speech is every bit as sincere as the press's.

That means any state regulation of them is baaaad, an attack on freedom of speech - and let's not use the t-word please...

The wild, wild web persists when it comes to tax avoidance, an issue with several of the billionaire press barons too. The industries have in common neo-liberal, fundamentalist free market owners. There is a current fightback in Europe, with several states pursuing legal cases against Google and its use of internal billing to minimise declared profit and focus this in low tax Ireland.

Contrastingly, Facebook and Instagram freak at the (female) nipple (helping to inspire the #freethenipple campaign), and in this case seem to have worked to undermine the meme protesting across a controversial rape sentencing in America, protecting the privileged (the censoring itself having gone viral, they've now said this was a technical glitch and will stop).

Interesting point on privacy - held up for private citizens but not for those in the public eye or on matters of public record.

This in the week when the EU-mandated right to forget saw Axl Rose apply for a takedown of prominent Axl is fat meme images.

See this Distractify post for more.

EU sanctions to silence Chinese whispers?

Another example of how the EU impacts on media regulation (AtVod and PEGI are regulators who exist primarily as a response to EU regulations). Excerpt:

The Paris-based press freedom body, Reporters Without Borders (RSF), has called for European Union sanctions against China’s main TV broadcaster and its official news agency over the Peter Dahlin case.
As the Guardian reported yesterday, Dahlin, a Swedish human rights activist “was paraded on Chinese television on Tuesday night to make what friends and colleagues describe as a ‘forced confession’”.
He appeared on the state-owned China Central Television (CCTV) and critical claims about him were carried by the official news agency, Xinhua.
...
In August 2014, RSF called on the European Council to adopted sanctions against CCTV following the screened “confession” of Chinese journalist Gao Yu about disclosing state secrets. Months later, at her trial, she said she made the confession under duress.
There is a precedent for EU action. In March 2013, the European Council found that the Iranian-backed Press TV had violated the right to a fair trial by their airing of forced confessions.

Full article: Press freedom body calls for EU sanctions against Chinese media.

WEB Right to be Forgotten attacked by BBC

Julian Powles makes a difficult argument well - defending the "right to be forgotten" created by an EU ruling against Google in Spain that gives EU citizens the right to ask Google (and other search engines) to effectively hide hits/results that highlight from their past they do not want seen.

He points out that this includes people whose names bring up crimes ... that they were acquitted of, but you don't get that info in the top results, just the more sensational coverage of the accusations.

There are clashing principles here, both enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights:

• freedom of speech
• right to privacy; a private life

Why the BBC is wrong to republish ‘right to be forgotten’ links.

ATVOD Alive and kicking BBFC rejects

Atvod is worth noting in any analysis of convergence, and is also linked to the BBFC. Be aware (see note below) that it often rules on adult content. It comes from EU law (The Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2007)

The Authority for Television On Demand (ATVOD), formerly the Association for Television On-Demand, is a quango, regulatory agency designated by Ofcom as the "co-regulator" of television on demand (VOD) in the UK. ATVOD was founded in 2010 following a European Union directive on the regulation of audiovisual media. It is responsible for regulating on-demand services such as ITV Player and Channel 4’s All 4, as well as paid-for content on websites which are deemed to be "tv-like". [Wiki]

NB: please note that Gayle's article (linked below) features an image illustrating the theme of adult content, and that many links to AtVod you may encounter will feature discussion of adult content, which seems to have been the main type of media content targeted by it, thus far. Quotes from this include some explicit sexual terms, and are only viewable if you click 'read more'.

QUOTES FROM GAYLE'S ARTICLE [analysis follows]

GLOBALISATION WEB 2.0 Brussels sprouts Amazonian muscle?

At the UK national level we're seeing 'sweetheart' deals for media multinationals widely accused of tax avoidance practices, but at the EU level there appears to be appetite for challenging these global giants. Using examples such as Amazon, the EU has opened an investigation into the possible monopoly of some, which could lead to significant new regulation.
EU warns of 'point of no return' if internet firms are not regulated soon.

DEREGULATION GLOBALISATION Robert Bork + why EU tackles Google monopoly when US doesn't

I was aware of Robert Bork, but couldn't have pinned down his relevance to the media (de)regulation issue before I'd read this excellent article by John Naughton, intriguing enough to interrupt a time out in the fading sunshine!

The news hook is that the EU have announced an investigation into Google's practices, giving them 10 weeks to respond to an accusation of monopolistic strategy. Naughton highlights the stark contrast with the US, where the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), faced with the same data as the EU's competition commissioner (the US actually passed it on!), decided not to take a case ... despite several staff apparently arguing they should.

This is where Naughton draws on the writings and influence of Robert Bork, one of the foremost theorists of the neoliberal, deregulatory ideology that has slowly gained hegemony since the New Right movements of Thatcherism and Reaganomics took hold in the early 1980s.