Regulating the new information intermediaries as gatekeepers of information diversity

Abstract

Purpose -The purposes of this paper are to deal with the questions: because search engines, social networks and app-stores are often referred to as gatekeepers to diverse information access, what is the evidence to substantiate these gatekeeper concerns, and to what extent are existing regulatory solutions to control gatekeeper control suitable at all to address new diversity concerns? It will also map the different gatekeeper concerns about media diversity as evidenced in existing research before the background of network gatekeeping theory critically analyses some of the currently discussed regulatory approaches and develops the contours of a more user-centric approach towards approaching gatekeeper control and media diversity. Design/methodology/approach -This is a conceptual research work based on desk research into the relevant and communications science, economic and legal academic literature and the relevant laws and public policy documents. Based on the existing evidence as well as on applying the insights from network gatekeeping theory, this paper then critically reviews the existing legal/policy discourse and identifies elements for an alternative approach. Findings -This paper finds that when looking at search engines, social networks and app stores, many concerns about the influence of the new information intermediaries on media diversity have not so much their source in the control over critical resources or access to information, as the traditional gatekeepers do. Instead, the real bottleneck is access to the user, and the way the relationship between social network, search engine or app platforms and users is given form. Based on this observation, the paper concludes that regulatory initiatives in this area would need to pay more attention to the dynamic relationship between gatekeeper and gated. Research limitations/implications -Because this is a conceptual piece based on desk-research, meaning that our assumptions and conclusions have not been validated by own empirical research. Also, although the authors have conducted to their best knowledge the literature review as broad and as concise as possible, seeing the breadth of the issue and the diversity of research outlets, it cannot be excluded that we have overlooked one or the other publication. Practical implications -This paper makes a number of very concrete suggestions of how to approach potential challenges from the new information intermediaries to media diversity. Social implications -The societal implications of search engines, social networks and app stores for media diversity cannot be overestimated. And yet, it is the position of users, and their exposure to diverse information that is often neglected in the current dialogue. By drawing attention to the dynamic relationship between gatekeeper and gated, this paper highlights the importance of this relationship for diverse exposure to information. Originality/value -While there is currently much discussion about the possible challenges from search engines, social networks ...

Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility

“…The same is true, albeit to a lesser extent, for the commercial media (Council of Europe 31 January 2007) and cable and pay-tv platforms. At present, the diversity regulations do not apply to the new information intermediaries such as search engines, social networks, and app stores (Helberger, Kleinen-von K€ onigsl€ ow, and Noll 2015). Since some of these platforms have become central information gateways (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism 2016), some have argued that mandatory diversity safeguards should also extend to platforms (e.g., Foster, 2013; High Level Expert Group on Media Pluralism).…”

Digital intermediaries in the UK: implications for news plurality

“…Existing regulatory frameworks however are not designed to curtail the impact intermediaries may have on media plurality (Helberger et al, 2015;Mansell, 2015b). For example, current rules preventing media concentration and control over opinion formation in the UK and Germany specifically prevent large newspaper companies from purchasing influential broadcasters, [2] but would not prevent similar transactions between digital intermediaries and newspapers or broadcasters.…”

“…On one hand, the intermediaries themselves such as Google and Facebook say that we live in a new age of crowdsourced plurality, and on the other hand others are concerned that intermediaries reduce both content and exposure plurality (Helberger et al, 2015;Napoli and Karppinen, 2013; …”

“…Important interventions such as Foster (2012) and Helberger et al (2015) that specifically address the issue of intermediaries and plurality stop short of investigating the available empirical evidence, in part because this is a new field with significant analytical problems, notably the complexity of the concept of media plurality itself (Napoli, 1999). [3] Empirical research on media influence and plurality has focused on questions of ownership concentration (Noam, 2011;Napoli & Gillis, 2006) media effects (Gerbner et al, 2002) agenda setting (McCombs and Shaw, 1972;Cohen, 1963) and information flow.…”

“…(Singer, 2014). Laidlaw (2010) and other theorists commenting on intermediary control do not link the question of intermediary control to wider issues of media plurality and power, but work by Helberger et al (2015) does attempt to look at the implications of intermediary power for media plurality.…”