The truth is…

…Facebook and Google are publishers and so must take on the responsibilities that entails. By Raymond Snoddy.

It seems to be one of the most simple questions to ask – merely a matter of definition, something to be interrogated, debated and then resolved.

Are social giants such as Facebook and Google publishers or not?

Unfortunately layers of complexity and issues have to be unwrapped before you can even get close to the apparent simplicity of the question.

What is certain is that it is one of the most fundamental questions in the media universe, whose implications spread out in waves across wider human societies, carrying in its train enormous consequences.

The internet is a bastion of free speech and therefore a great human good – but should it be free to deliver fake news, hate news, and jihadi recruiting atrocities while at the same time undermining the economics of established publishers through what arithmetic would suggest are monopolies in digital search and advertising?

The latest to enter the fray is no less a figure than Andrew Parker, director-general of MI5, who argued in a rare speech that the technology giants have “an ethical responsibility” to stop terrorists buying bomb-making material and communicating online.

“No company wants to provide terrorists with explosive precursors, social media platforms don’t want to host bomb-making videos and communications providers don’t want to provide the means of terrorists planning beyond the sight of MI5,” argued the polite chief spook.

Yet that is what they are doing, inadvertently or not.
[advert position=”left”]
Where should the line be drawn between free speech and regulation and censorship, and what could you do even if you wanted to tackle two corporations with a combined market capitalisation of more than $1.1 trillion?

The scale of the dilemmas involved are perfectly illustrated and personified by the views of three powerful women appearing before the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee.

Dame Patricia Hodgson, who chairs Ofcom, noted that finally the issue was being grasped and that she was convinced, personally, that the tech giants were publishers.

Her chief executive at Ofcom, Sharon White, took a slightly more nuanced line using the “P” word in passing as if she thought them publishers but without clearly pronouncing on the issue.

“We feel strongly that the platforms as publishers have got more responsibility to ensure the right content,” she said, while apparently ruling out regulation or any other enforcement measures to ensure such a thing happens.

The third – from Culture Secretary Karen Bradley – involved hopping from one leg to the other in a very political way.

It’s quite clear there has been unacceptable behaviour carried on the internet, Bradley said, but on the other hand we don’t want to take sledgehammer legislation to crack a nut.

Some nut.

If the tech giants were ruled to be publishers under common law, why that could impact on freedom of speech, civil liberties and the ability to enjoy the benefits of the internet.

Naturally she is “looking” at the German model where the social media giants can be fined up to £40 million if they don’t take offensive – add your own definition – material down within 24 hours.

Anyone expecting action from DCMS should be wary of holding their breath.

As Sir Martin Sorrell, chief executive of WPP, argued more than a year ago the social media giants are publishers. They distribute material and sell advertising against it.

Publishers.

If anything the case for publisher status has strengthened since then as they continue to launch channels of programming and increasingly fund their own original content.

They look like publishers, act like publishers and publishers are what they are and therefore they have to take on the responsibilities of publishers.

In reality they have begun to accept by implication their new unsought and so far unacknowledged status – why otherwise should they be spending millions on fact checkers and making some attempt to work with existing publishers on fairer splits of revenues.

As Culture Secretary Bradley continues to hop from one leg to the other what on earth can be done to make the social media giants accept greater responsibilities for their actions – as publishers?

The sledgehammer approach would of course be to use monopoly legislation against them to break them up.

Lower levels of market dominance in the US than that enjoyed by Facebook and Google led, historically, to action against steel and railway barons and more recently telecommunications.

A difficult approach because of the international nature of the social media giants but the sledgehammer option should be held in reserve.

In the absence of US action, which cannot be ruled out completely because of Russian manipulation of the Presidential election, the EU is likely to be the most powerful player in this arena.

It can impose eye-watering fines in the way that a small and increasingly isolated country like the UK cannot. The £2 billion fine on Google for alleged online market rigging, now subject to appeal, certainly got the attention of the guys in Mountain View, California.

A trans-EU approach to what amounts to unacceptable communication, if such a thing can be successfully defined, would carry considerable weight if backed up by sanctions.

Again something to hold in reserve if all else fails.

We are not completely powerless in the face of the trillionaires. After all, pirate radio stations were once squeezed hard by making it illegal for British companies to place advertising with them.

Unfortunately the UK, as it leaves the EU, will have no influence in framing such a policy.

One way forward is for the Government to carry out its manifesto promise to create a digital charter but one that would at least carry the threat of sanctions if its provisions were ignored.

Damian Collins and his media select committee could be influential in this process, as could the three powerful women if all three were prepared to get off the fence and accept the importance and urgency of trying to reform an unacceptable status quo.

Despite all the conceptual and definitional problems the tech giants are not just tech giants but publishers as well and a concerted approach is now needed to persuade them that their best interests lie in accepting the responsibilities of publishers.

If they don’t, life could become increasing difficult and costly. They are making powerful enemies.