Competition Commission findings exciting, proactive – but cannot fail

The provisional findings of the Competition Commissions report on the Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry (MDPMI) have created a sensation in the media sector. The outcome affects not only competition between news media and social and search media platforms such as Google, Meta/Facebook and TikTok, but may also ensure the public gets credible news and information from diverse and pluralistic media.

Much of the attention has focused on the possible establishment of a media industry fund that Google may be required to bulk out to the tune of R300- to R500-million a year for at least three years. For most people, those are huge amounts, the kind we read about in grand-scale corruption or national budgets.

Regardless of how the amounts were reached, they start to give some idea of the real value that our news and media sector has been losing.

There have been some great pieces setting out some of the core findings and issues see here and here.

Other critical issues are addressed in the provisional report. There is repeated emphasis on the need to ensure that any solutions found need to work to build media diversity and plurality. To achieve this, the report also emphasises the importance not only of the bigger established media but also the smaller players, including commercial and community media.

While inclusive, it doesn’t mean just any media; the qualifying criteria is that all media must subscribe to either the Press Council or the Broadcast Complaints Commission of South Africa

In effect, the findings have opened the support for media up to almost the entire sector. In this context, the amount no longer seems that much, but we also know, after the launch of the findings, that the already established Digital News Transformation Fund needs to be increased.

At this stage, Google has committed to more than R100-million over three years. So it would appear it may be required to pay the small media fund and to the other, broader industry fund on top of that.

One of the more worrying elements of developments ahead of the MDPMI was what appeared to be ‘a divide and conquer’ approach being used by the platforms. We heard about certain media being approached and deals being offered. The amounts and what was on the table was not public.

The secretiveness and confidentiality of discussions ran contrary to news organisations which, by their nature, demand openness and transparency.

A seemingly small but important finding is that there should be collective bargaining by news media with the platforms. Not only does this mean deals are likely to be more inclusive, it also means that smaller media organisations have a stronger position to negotiate.

Ordinarily the idea of media organisations coming together for collective agreements would constitute collusion, so the MDPMI has made specific findings that media organisations are given exemption to negotiate collectively

Another possible consequence is that the nature of the deal will be less likely to be as secretive. Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) will, when it makes its submissions to the commission, argue that the deals should be as transparent.

Crucially, the report also says the public broadcaster, the SABC, must be included in these deals and in ensuring its content and news feeds are also treated fairly. The inclusion of the SABC is indicative of three vital issues.

First, it demonstrates the more inclusive and sector-wide approach of the Competition Commission, showing it isn’t only some media affected by the anti-competitive practices of the platforms, but all of them.

Second, the SABC’s inclusion also presents the first concrete finding for resource mobilisation for its sustainability. The SABC, yet again, is facing a financial crisis. (There are multiple causes, but expecting the SABC to operate using a model developed in the 1990s is a major cause – and just to be clear, no, the SABC Bill recently presented offered more of the same and certain oblivion of the SABC.)

Third, it highlights the importance of a public broadcaster to the media ecosystem. The SABC commands the largest national audiences in African languages and fulfils an essential public mandate.

The provisional findings have done more. They have also served to highlight the crisis our news media is in and helped demonstrate the David and Goliath nature of the current state of affairs.

At one point in the presentation, the Commission refers to Google’s presence in  advertising technology (AdTech) as ‘super dominant’. That’s a slightly diplomatic way of saying that Google has an overwhelming monopoly in AdTech. To be clear, AdTech is how Google makes much of its money.

Google’s dominance in search engines is also highlighted, while people’s reliance on social media to access most of their news shows not only how the consumption of news has changed, but also how, with the dominance and ubiquity of platforms, they are moving closer to being public utilities

Platforms aren’t only nice-to-haves; equal access to the Internet is increasingly recognised as a human right. The common ways of interfacing with information is increasingly through the platforms.

In practical terms, many small media outlets, which may not have been able to print copies of their content, may have grown to rely on Facebook to disseminate their news. So what happens when Meta/Facebook decides to deprioritise news? It means the small media outlets don’t reach their audiences, and the public effectively has their right to receive information limited.

The changes being suggested by the Commission therefore move far beyond competition issues to include fundamental rights issues of freedom of expression and access to diverse credible information.

The reference to fundamental rights of the MDPMI also facilitated the Commission to make findings on the issue of mis- and disinformation. In addition to supporting the importance of fact checking – and we would submit other information integrity-building initiatives such as Real411 – the Commission has recommended that platforms are held accountable for misinformation.

It’s a crucial finding.

The Commission has recommended that the Electronic Communications Act is amended to ‘introduce liability for online platforms that allow harmful content and amplify misleading content through algorithms, or where misinformation reaches a certain threshold of users through follower accounts (for example, more than 10 000 followers)’.

‘Additionally, for the Act to be amended to introduce a provision requiring platforms to adopt a policy of pro-actively removing harmful content and not providing an algorithmic boost to misinformation, including a prohibition on promoted posts or ads that contain misinformation.’

There are a range of potential hazards, and the MMA will make comprehensive submissions on all of them. These include whether the Act is the best piece of legislation to amend.

What is interesting is that unlike most efforts to legislate against online harms, especially disinformation, the findings don’t seek to ban or censor the content but rather to hold the platforms accountable for the amplification of the speech and to impose a positive obligation to pro-actively act against and ensure the algorithms don’t boost such content

It’s an exciting development and should resonate with anyone who is angered by the abject failure of some platforms such as Twitter/X and insufficient action of others to mitigate disinformation.

The proactive nature of the provisional findings highlights the importance of platforms supporting media literacy programmes. The findings also highlight the effect of online harms against children.

There is much else to discuss and make submissions on. While there might be some issues that need to be clarified or strengthened, there are a range of positive findings. Perhaps the greatest challenge now is to ensure that the positive findings are retained and, if anything, taken even further.

But the dark forces are strong and global shifts seek to see less accountability by platforms and not more. The stakes couldn’t be higher. If the Commission walks back on many of the issues, it will almost certainly be the end of many news media outlets.

Less accountability will mean more impunity. These are fights we cannot afford to lose. Our democracy is too precious to let it fail.

• Bird is the director of Media Monitoring Africa, a media watchdog and NGO
• This piece was first published in the Mail & Guardian, here