OPINION: Saving journalism means tackling surveillance capitalism

Photo by Glen Carrie

By Kendal Gee (MIA ’24)

In late October, SIPA gathered media policy experts for “Saving Journalism 2: What Can We Learn from the Rest of the World,” a panel exploring measures to save quality journalism globally. 

One action creating significant buzz is Australia’s media bargaining code, a law designed to level the playing field between media publishers and online platforms by making large technology companies — such as Meta and Google — pay local news publishers for the news content made available or linked on their platforms. Now, legislators in places such as the United Kingdom and Canada are looking at both creating media bargaining codes and using major technology company regulation to create systemic support for information as a public good. 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the likelihood for similar progress in the United States remains low. In May 2022, Pew Research Center reported that public support for regulation of major technology companies dropped to 44%, down from 56% in 2021. Legislation to protect publishers, such as the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, remains stuck in Congress. This disconnect between the importance of protecting journalism and political will is a challenge for policymakers. 

So what could increase political will for regulation to support quality public information? “The first step is explaining to people that it's a business model problem, not a people problem,” says Poppy Wood, UK Director of Reset Technology, an initiative engaged in programmatic work on technology and democracy. 

According to Reset Technology, the business model of digital platforms such as Google and Meta relies on “surveillance capitalism,” a term coined by former Harvard Business School professor Shoshana Zuboff that describes the monetization of data captured by monitoring people's behaviors online. Monetization comes in the form of targeted ads, and platforms such as Facebook Ads use this data to enable advertisers to target users based on highly personal traits such as political views, interest in dating apps, or even personality traits, which maximize the chances an advertiser will reach an audience interested in their product. 

The hordes of data that Meta and Google sit on are highly valuable to advertisers and have created a duopoly on the digital ad market. As the value of advertising space in our information-abundant world decreases, big tech companies are grabbing growing shares of the total digital ad market, a revenue stream that publishers rely on for profit.

Even more dire is surveillance capitalism’s use of algorithms to amplify what information users see online. Data monetization means that the value of content for readers is dependent on its clicks, and analysis indicates that online posts and articles that spark emotion generally increase their virality. This model amplifies content that is outrageous, exaggerated, and even untrue, while making it difficult for trustworthy journalism to make it onto people’s newsfeeds. Not only does this reduce ad revenue for quality publishers, it also promotes misleading content to fill a news vacuum. 

The links between the dominance of internet companies and the demise of journalism are clear, and Americans who have heard “at least a fair amount” about the debate on major technology company regulation are more likely to support policy action: 69% versus 42%. But until policymakers strengthen their message, these issues are unlikely to be pushed to the forefront of public debate. 

Fortunately, this soon may be possible. According to Wood, the workings of algorithmic systems are not currently transparent, making it difficult to explain to the public what exactly is needed. However, the European Union’s Digital Services Act requires internet platforms to open up their data to independent researchers approved by the EU. 

Policymakers in the United States can pay close attention to the effects of these proposals, as potential models to tackle surveillance capitalism and as sources of hard evidence that can bolster political will to protect the quality of information online.  

Kendal Gee (MIA ’24) is a staff writer for The Morningside Post.