There are two controversies currently playing up with respect to the role of the ‘Big Tech’ at this time. The first one is about whether Google should pay royalties on the articles shown via their technology. In France apparently Google has cut a deal with publishers to do so, in Australia a law has been passed ordering to do the same there – which has been met by staunch resistance by this tech company. The second is the question about fines to Google, Facebook and others for wrongful content, having their subscribers not properly adhere to ‘fake news’ distribution (‘censorship’) laws. This topic runs parallel to allowing these companies to censure their subscribers: whether Twitter has the duty to ban Donald Trump’s account after the storming of the Capitol and Linkedin or Youtube in their own versions of bans. Both of these controversies are linked and intensely related. To understand how, we need to do some further analysis by distinguishing between two potentially different – and mutually exclusive – roles of these platforms.

Publisher

First of all, if the techies fulfill the role of publisher, their algorithms may be proprietary and their role is similar to that of any newspaper: selectively bring news to the audience, which has chosen the publisher on the basis of their reputation. The main difference between the bubble of Facebook and the bubble of any regular newspaper is that Facebook’s bubble is personalized. It provides added value by selecting and editing information, not unlike a publisher does. Facebook earns it’s money by selectively bringing certain information and advertisements to optimize screen time and revenue potential. In such a role, it would behoove them to pay royalties like any other publisher would do.

At the same time, a publisher takes ownership of the content and therefore is responsible for any slander, discrimination etc. Censorship does not exist in this role, it is called ‘editing’. Thus, in such a role, nobody should complain if their account is banned, similar to a journalist whose submitted article is not being printed.

Search engine        

The second alternative role is that e.g. Google is a pure search engine. Currently the search algorithm is personalized via a proprietary and unknown method but a real (‘honest’) search engine will provide answers regardless of the person asking the question. This difference is analogous to the difference between a fact and a point of view. As such the service provided is a tool, which provides ‘objective’ (access to) information, which might include the IP-address of a poster; any legal retributions would fall in the government domain. With a proprietary search engine, there is a basis of manipulation: the user expects to be provided real data, but is partially fed ‘tailored’ responses. In such a ‘pure search’ role, it would be fitting for the search engine not to pay any royalties at all.

Also, in this role fines for Google for allowing contributors to slander others would not seem appropriate, these should be borne by the originators of the content. It might be convenient for governments to fine Google and Facebook for not ‘properly managing it’s content’, whether it is appropriate – or a proof of their own incompetence – is another matter. Censorship of public domain is, if applicable, in my humble opinion, a government task. Not only are Western governments handing some of their core responsibilities away, it also makes a few private companies responsible for that censorship, leading to an inordinate centralization of power – and does not befit a real search engine.

Distinction in roles

Below a brief comparison of aspects and roles

TWO ROLES	Publisher	Search engine
Algorithm	Proprietary ‘(Commercial)’	Public
Content control	Editing	None
Penalties on content	Yes	No
Royalties	Yes	No

So far so good. However, the most profitable position is a mixture of both, which is what Big Tech has gotten away with: the claim to be an impartial search engine, while at the same time selling the edits. That by itself does not make the parties morally deficient, but introduces a constant seduction: there is a constant push towards promoting one role while invisibly performing the other. We see Google promote itself as a search engine but sell the results to providers. Amazon promotes itself as a marketplace but at the same time sells some products itself as well, competing against it’s own marketplace holders. That used to be called ‘channel conflict’ and ultimately will turn against the actor.

The defense of Big Tech might very well argue that this blog ‘does not understand the nature of high tech’ and the ‘intricacies of modern technology’ that there is a third option, which is a search engine which should not pay royalties but with a proprietary algorithm. I am open to examine the possible argumentation for such a position, but must admit I have not been able to find it yet. So, my current hypothesis is that ‘some people are trying to have their cake and eat it too’.

In the end, a choice will have to be made by both Big Tech which role they strive for and governments which roles they will allow. The later the choice is made, the harder the adjustment for all parties involved. Until then, mainly the lawyers earn a good living off it, as a consumer I feel misled, and we allow governments to create a dragon they can not control. A dragon that is slowly eating up freedom of expression.