Icon: enlarge
Scrap always goes and is in abundance.
Where is the problem?
Photo:
Robert Cianflone / Getty Images
Christian Stöcker, arrow to the right
Photo: SPIEGEL ONLINE
Born 1973, is a cognitive psychologist and has been a professor at the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences (HAW) since autumn 2016.
There he is responsible for the "Digital Communication" course.
Before that, he headed the Netzwelt department at SPIEGEL ONLINE.
You have to imagine the blog entry by Facebook's Australia boss William Easton presented by Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone.
This tight-sounding, tired, hoarse voice, the threat clearly hidden under deep concern: You have »fundamentally misunderstood our relationship (...), you are making a blatant decision: to abide by the law that ignores the realities of this relationship , or stop allowing news content on our services in Australia.
We choose the latter with a heavy heart. "
With a heavy heart, it really is.
The situation, in a nutshell: Australia's not overly sympathetic government - Prime Minister Scott Morrison, for example, is a big fan of coal and ambivalent about climate change - has taken on Facebook and Google on behalf of the country's major publishing and media houses.
The latter are also sometimes not overly likeable.
Many of them belong to the Murdoch clan.
Current status of the conflict: Worldwide, including us, you can no longer post links to the content of Australian media on Facebook.
"Please be grateful"
An unsympathetic government has passed a law on behalf of unsympathetic media houses that is supposed to bring in money for the publishers.
Facebook responds with a general news strike for Australian media.
The logic in the debate between publishers and internet platforms has been the same for years, including in Europe:
Publisher:
»You show our content in your offers, that makes your offers more attractive, but we don't earn anything from it.
That needs to change."
Platforms:
»Of course, you earn money from it: Our platforms give your content reach, we bring customers to you.
If you don't earn as much from these customers as you would like, that's your problem, not ours.
Kindly be grateful. "
So far, these arguments have always ended in the same way:
Platforms:
»You want money when we display your content?
Then we won't show them anymore.
You will see where you are then. "
This is what happened, for example, on Google News in Spain in 2014.
Spain stayed tough.
Google News Spain has been closed.
How much the Spanish newspapers really hurt is a matter of debate today.
The reaction of the publishing houses and media houses in Germany was different: after the so-called ancillary copyright had been successfully lobbyed despite all objections, the media houses found contrite that they did not want to forego the reach of the platforms.
Many publishers gave Google "free consent".
Range yes, money no.
Authority pages also caught
As you are used to from the big platforms, the current news strike in Australia caused collateral damage: Facebook not only inadvertently made it impossible to share posts from Australian media houses, but also caught public health and disaster relief services, for example.
Unhappy, in the middle of a pandemic and in the middle of the bush fire season.
It was the machine!
But what if the machine has become an integral part of society?
Pages that serve to prevent suicide or offer help to victims of domestic violence also fell victim to the ban beam, which should actually only affect greedy publishers.
And a lot more.
Prime Minister Morrison announced meanwhile that he would ally himself with other heads of government against Facebook.
Smear or strike
Neither side is looking good in this conflict.
It illustrates the helplessness of traditional media providers in the face of a fundamentally changed public and crumbling business models.
Above all, however, it illustrates the growing reluctance of the internet giants to display their power.
Brando voice: “They have a nice range there.
Wouldn't it be a shame if something happened. "
Google proceeded differently: There they signed contracts with individual Australian media companies, so that money is actually flowing from the search engine to the publishers.
Also on Murdoch's climate crisis assessment media.
There are two tactics: smear or strike.
Neither of them change the basic problem.
Great, this QAnon content!
For the rest of humanity it is about something other than money.
Facebook (and, for example, YouTube) markets the attention of its users.
How this attention is drawn and held is secondary.
display
Christian Stocker
We are the experiment: our world is changing so breathtakingly that we stagger from crisis to crisis.
We have to learn to manage this tremendous acceleration.
Publisher: Karl Blessing Verlag
Number of pages: 384
Publisher: Karl Blessing Verlag
Number of pages: 384
Buy for € 22.00
Price query time
02/21/2021 4:32 p.m.
No guarantee
Icon: Info
Order at AmazonIcon: amazon
Order from ThaliaIcon: thalia
Product reviews are purely editorial and independent.
Via the so-called affiliate links above, we usually receive a commission from the dealer when making a purchase.
More information here
Pure attention optimization, however, inevitably produces collateral damage: cascades of recommendations that lead pedophiles to videos of children in swimwear.
Top reach for conspiracy theorists, anti-vaccination propaganda and right-wing extremist hatred.
Disinformation, agitation, terrorist livestreams and propaganda videos.
And so on.
In the end, the Capitol is stormed.
This QAnon content went great!
It's all basically the same.
The main thing is that people stay there and see more advertising.
"Business profit from news minimal"
In fact, Facebook's Australia boss Easton is probably right when he writes: "For Facebook, the business gain from messages is minimal." The new law, Easton said, "penalizes Facebook for content that was not asked for and not taken Has".
As I said: all content.
Scrap always goes and is in abundance.
Where is the problem?
In many countries, Facebook and Google are not just any kind of companies that earn money with advertising on the Internet.
They are elementary components of the public infrastructure itself, and also quasi-monopolists.
This fact is very good for business.
It only becomes uncomfortable when you suddenly have to take responsibility for what you earn your money with.
The time budget of humanity rearranged
These attention-suckers, optimized with user interface design and automated curation, have been created, which have fundamentally rearranged the time budget of almost all of humanity - and now you are suddenly supposed to be responsible for the consequences!
With the attitude “move fast and break things” you can certainly pull up a start-up quickly and agilely, but you cannot operate a global social infrastructure.
Now the big questions suddenly come up in quick succession.
Ban Trump, yes, no, and if so: when?
Block QAnon?
Removing the reach of opponents of vaccination?
Prevent pogroms?
Stop Terror Propaganda?
It's all content.
Great power, to say it with Spider-Man's uncle, also comes with great responsibility.
In Australia, the wrong people have started a bitter conflict for the wrong reasons.
The real problem, however, is much more fundamental: Who decides how, what gets reach, what is talked about, what (dis) information does an audience find?
It is sorely necessary that this is finally discussed openly and worldwide.
Icon: The mirror