Latest news with #MediaandDigitalPlatformsMarketInquiry
The Citizen
20-05-2025
- Business
- The Citizen
Google takes issue with Competition Commission market inquiry
The Competition Commission's Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry's provisional report found Google guilty of anti-competitive practices. Google has taken issue with several of the recommendations the Competition Commission of South Africa has laid out in the Media & Digital Platforms Market Inquiry (MDPMI). The Commission published the non-confidential version of Google's response to its provisional report on the MDPMI last week. Anti-competitive practice In February this year, it published its provisional report on the MDPMI, with Google in particular being looked at for how it engages with local publications and how it drives users to the news. It found the tech giant guilty of anti-competitive practices and stated that it could be required to pay up to R500 million a year in compensation to South African media outlets. 'Google's monopoly position and the unequal bargaining position of the media means there has not been an equitable share of value between Google and news publishers in South Africa both historically and currently. 'This inequity has materially contributed to the erosion of the media in SA over the past fourteen years and will continue to do so unless remedied,' the Commission outlined in February. ALSO READ: Google says SA news industry needs 'innovation and collaboration' after Competition Commission report Google responds Some of the key points taken from the full version of Google's submission state that the commission does not take into account the fact that the way people access news has changed. 'We search, stream and scroll across multiple sites, platforms and screens to understand what's going on in our communities and around the world. 'The SACC's proposed remedies put a disproportionate burden on Google. As well as ignoring the change in consumer behaviour, the Commission's recommendations would force one platform to compensate news publishers for the inadequate referral traffic they get from social media sites,' Google said. 'Restricting innovation' Google said the commission is also restricting innovation in South Africa. 'The Commission's idea for how to modify specific AI [Artificial Intelligence] products would break innovative features like AI Overviews and Gemini, both of which have been helping people in South Africa more easily learn about complex topics. 'Not only would this limit South Africans' access to knowledge openly available elsewhere in the world, it could create conditions detrimental to future investment and innovation in the market,' Google said. Collaboration In March, Google said it would continue to collaborate with the industry and the Competition Commission to find balanced solutions for the news ecosystem's future, and to invest in tools that help all publishers adapt and innovate. The commission set up an inquiry at the end of 2023 following concerns that some market features in digital platforms that distribute news media content might restrict, distort or impede competition. ALSO READ: Google to study Competition Commission report on R500m payment
Daily Maverick
18-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Digital divide, global dialogue — how South Africa can play a role in redesigning media's future
Global challenges need globally informed but locally grounded solutions. It is therefore unsurprising that authorities around the world have an eye on South Africa's experience of media and digital platforms. It is not only South Africa grappling with the impact of social media platforms on the shifting landscape of traditional media. Recently, representatives from across the world took part in the CTRL+J Latam Big Tech & Journalism – A Global South Perspective Conference in São Paulo, Brazil, to exchange policy developments, unpack research into these industries, hear directly from journalists and share observations from market inquiries into digital markets. This was my first visit to Brazil, and I was struck by the similarities in the economies of our countries. Even though Brazil's economy is larger than ours, they face many of the same challenges we do, including on the digital and media fronts. Brazil is currently looking at strengthening its copyright law and competition law as legal tools to deal with the ever-growing issue of concentration in its country and globally, as well as implementing digital policies. I was part of a panel that explored the urgent question: What does fair compensation for news look like in the digital age? The panel included representatives from Canada, Denmark, the US and Brazil, all of whom have a stake in building a fairer, more sustainable digital media ecosystem and an interest in gaining a deeper understanding of the short- and long-term remedial actions incorporated in the Provisional Report of the Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry (MDPMI). As the case manager for the Competition Commission of South Africa's MDPMI and having worked on the concluded Online Intermediation Platforms Market Inquiry (OIPMI), I brought insights such as how platforms like Google extract value from news content, the growing impact of artificial intelligence-powered search and why regulatory frameworks are essential for protecting public interest journalism, especially for smaller and vernacular media. My contribution focused on remedies specifically addressing compensation, both short and long term, relating to data transparency and algorithmic biases on social media platforms. In addition, I highlighted the important need for longer-term visibility for smaller publications and community media. Engagements with stakeholders during the MDPMI's information gathering processes identified that media houses, industry experts and journalists remain greatly uncertain about the impact that artificial intelligence will have on the business of media, including information gathering and dissemination, protecting language plurality and information integrity. Global challenges need globally informed but locally grounded solutions. It is therefore unsurprising that authorities around the world have an eye on South Africa's experience of media and digital platforms as well as the stakeholder response to the MDPMI Provisional Report. And what they can adapt from that process for their unique contexts. It is this sense of collaboration and like-mindedness in wanting to protect media diversity that stood out to me throughout the conference. Our panel emphasised that protecting the media and our citizens in our countries should remain of paramount importance as policies are developed to address the evolving impact of tech in the media industry, algorithms and the collection of data. This is not to say that the media industry should not also adapt to change and technology – instead, journalists at the conference emphasised that media plurality should be amplified fairly by tech and leveraged by community and vernacular media to have their voices heard by digital media platforms. It was educational to hear first-hand how Australian and Canadian regulators are reshaping policy and moving towards tariffs. This conference and building of networks with representatives from around the world has equipped me and the MDPMI team to be at the forefront of developments that are happening around the world. The timing of the conference could not have been better as the MDPMI Provisional Report recently closed for public comment. Since the release of the provisional report, our team has continued to engage with stakeholders on the proposed remedies and recommendations, discussing unintended consequences and alternative feasible solutions. We are also involved in ongoing engagements with government entities since the best recommendations to support media plurality and protect the country's media are the ones that are collaborative. The MDPMI team has engaged with the commentary from media experts, considered global best practices and taken opinions shared by the public on social media under consideration as we continue to work on the final report. Non-confidential submissions and comments from the public and external stakeholders are available on our website. Vamos trabalhar juntos. DM
Daily Maverick
23-04-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Digital platforms have a profound and negative impact on media freedom and sustainability
South Africa's Competition Commission will soon begin finalising its inquiry into Big Tech and its impact on the media. Responses are dropping into its inbox. In part 5 of Daily Maverick's series, Ferial Haffajee asked the Competition Commission's inquiry chairperson James Hodge and panellist and media leader Paula Fray about the impact of the mass media's decline on democracy and whether they are trying to remake a world that doesn't exist. Question: What did the Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry (MDPMI) find about the impact of the platforms on media freedom in South Africa? Answer: The MDPMI found that digital platforms have had a profound and negative impact on media freedom and the financial sustainability of South Africa's news industry. Traditional advertising revenue has plummeted as digital platforms dominate the digital advertising space, diverting attention and revenue from news outlets. Platforms extract significant value from news content, creating a value imbalance of R300-million to R500-million [a year]. Platforms increasingly keep users within their ecosystems, drastically reducing click-throughs to news websites, undermining monetisation opportunities for media houses. The impact on journalism was laid bare at the public hearings held in March 2024, which heard of a halving of journalist numbers, increasing juniorisation and casualisation of newsroom staff, closure of regional bureaus and community newspapers, and a decline in coverage of rural and even secondary city areas. The cumulative effect is a systematic weakening of the media's financial base, which in turn threatens its ability to uphold its public mandate and thus ultimately poses a threat to media freedom, diversity and democratic accountability. Q: Your findings on the search engines (Google and, to a lesser extent, Bing) versus the social media companies are pretty different. Why is this? A: The remedies for both are the same in the long run: to increase referral traffic and offer the media a chance to monetise on their websites. It is only in the short term that it is proposed that Google compensates the media [at R300-million to R500-million a year for three years]. There are a few reasons for this. First, the two are very different markets. Search responds to user queries, whereas social media determines what goes into a user's feed. Search value is derived from being able to use media content to respond to news queries, whereas social media can decide whether to show media content at all. This is the unintended consequence we have seen elsewhere, namely the removal of news pages from Facebook. Second, it is only more recently that platforms like Meta have deprecated news content, and some, like TikTok and YouTube, have not done so at all. In contrast, search has drawn value from the media for a much longer period. Third, as social media platforms control the feed, they can address the referral traffic issue quickly, whereas it may take more time for search to address biases and user behaviour. Q: Why is media freedom important to democracy? This may seem obvious to some, but in a time where billionaire Elon Musk has made a catchphrase of the term 'you are the media', doesn't it suggest that with access to be your own media by all, this may no longer be that obvious a link? A: Media freedom is essential to democracy because it upholds the right to freedom of expression, a cornerstone of a democratic society. Media as a public good enables citizens to make informed decisions; by scrutinising government, corporations and other institutions, it holds power to account; and it amplifies diverse voices, fostering inclusivity and social cohesion. The MDPMI is unique because it recognises the media as essential to upholding the Constitutional Right to Freedom of Expression and other rights. Since digital platforms don't produce content, harm to the media threatens these rights. Section 39(2) of the Constitution requires the commission to interpret the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (as amended) in line with the Bill of Rights, making the protection of a strong, independent and diverse media vital to our democracy. The MDPMI thus explicitly connects media freedom to constitutional rights and sees the news media as key agents in fulfilling these rights. Their decline has constitutional implications. However, in the digital age, the link between professional journalism and democracy may appear less obvious. In a country with high levels of inequality, we know that not all voices are held equal. Access to platforms doesn't equate to reach, credibility or journalistic rigour. The information ecosystem is now filled with misinformation, disinformation and low-quality content. Professional journalism is governed by ethical codes, editorial standards and verification processes that all citizens deserve. Citizen-generated content is often not verified or held to similarly high standards. However, just because people can publish doesn't mean they will be seen. Platforms determine visibility, often amplifying sensationalism over substance. Journalism has social value that transcends commercial interests. A plurality of media voices creates a well-informed public and functioning democracy, and influencers or AI bots cannot replace this role. The internet has brought great opportunity for everyone to be heard, but the illusion of everyone being their own media can mask the decline of independent journalism, which remains irreplaceable in a democratic system. Q: How do you link the inquiry into platforms to the health of South African democracy? A: A weakened media landscape undermines the watchdog function essential to a healthy democracy. When the media cannot afford to cover rural areas or conduct investigations, the public loses access to vital information. The inquiry found that platform dominance has concentrated power, threatening the plurality and diversity of voices, particularly impacting vernacular, community and independent outlets that serve marginalised populations. We have seen that the platforms' gatekeeping role (via algorithms and monetisation strategies) can profoundly shape public discourse without public oversight or accountability. The MDPMI is therefore critical to the future of the South African democracy, and not just South African media. Without robust media, citizen agency, state accountability and democratic integrity are at risk. Q: The Competition Commission has made rigorous and remarkable recommendations in its interim report. Among these is that Google should capitalise a fund at the value of up to R500-million annually over three to five years while a relationship with the South African media is negotiated. That is audacious. Is it an opening gambit? A: The inquiry sought to determine the value of the news content relationship between Google and the media, and the distribution of that value. This was possible because the inquiry has evidence-gathering powers, which are absent in legislative processes that have resorted to bargaining models to find the balance in shared value. It was also necessary as Google and the mainstream print media had been in negotiations since the launch of the inquiry, but without success, given the very different estimations of value from both sides. This is partly a result of a lack of information available to the media. The estimation by the inquiry using evidence enables a reset in those negotiations around realistic values or the basis for an imposition by the Commission if no agreement is reached. Q: The interim report sets out a carrot and stick approach: if the platform companies (notably the search engines) do not agree to pay reparations, then the Commission will consider a 10% digital tax on their revenues. Have regulators or competition authorities in other countries done this? A: Given the difficulties faced with implementing the bargaining model in other countries, there has been a shift to considering digital taxes as an alternative. The reason is that it is unlikely to result in unintended consequences of reducing news content, as the platforms pay regardless of their algorithmic approach. As we understand in Australia, this has recently been considered as a fallback if no bargaining outcome is achieved. This is similar to the inquiry's approach, but our proposal differs fundamentally insofar as it looks to address the underlying cause of the imbalance, namely the choking of referral traffic, rather than simply looking to put in place indefinite transfers. Q: Your recommendations on the social media companies are different: you find, for example, that YouTube should increase its fee to content creators and that the others should not deprecate news posts. Could you explain this? A: There is a difference in how news media can monetise traffic on video-sharing platforms like YouTube instead of feed-based social media. On YouTube, the video is consumed on the platform rather than referring the traffic to the news site. This means that the only opportunity to monetise is through a share of revenue from in-video advertising. Hence, the focus has been on the fairness of the revenue-sharing model and the opportunities to sell their in-video ads at higher rate cards. In contrast, the feed-based social media has provided opportunities for text-based posts with links where consumers are redirected to the news website, which can then monetise the traffic through digital ad inventory sales. Hence, the focus has been on ensuring news is not deliberately deprecated, which chokes off the referral traffic. Where the feed-based social media includes video posts viewed on the platform, the inquiry has included a similar requirement to ensure a fair revenue-sharing arrangement. This applies to Meta. Q: How did you weigh up risk versus opportunity when making the findings? So-called Big Tech is ascendant in its power, given that US President Donald Trump has become its advocate. He has, for example, warned EU regulators against further efforts to mediate their market power. A: The mandate provided by the Competition Act requires that the Commission address market distortions to ensure a competitive and inclusive economy. The Competition Act applies to all behaviour that has an effect on the SA economy, which the conduct of global tech firms clearly does. This effect is even more so in this case, given the impact on the Constitutional rights of our citizens. The approach to remedies has also sought a win-win solution for both platforms and the media, that is sustainable for both, rather than simply taxing them. Given that the platforms face similar calls for compensation in other markets, we trust that the platforms see the opportunity in this approach to find resolutions and use SA as a testing ground for alternative remedies to address similar concerns in other jurisdictions. It is only if they choose not to that the recommendation for a potential digital levy or tariff is triggered. Q: What is the optimal outcome of the process? A: In an inquiry, the objective as set out in the Competition Act is to identify market factors that adversely affect competition and comprehensively remedy those in a practical and proportionate manner. The optimal outcome is therefore for the inquiry to make correct findings on what factors are adversely affecting competition and to put in place comprehensive remedies for those factors. The inquiry aims to achieve this by ensuring its findings are evidence-based and to retain an ongoing dialogue with stakeholders to ensure their concerns are fairly heard and assessed, whilst seeking to find some common ground on practical and proportionate remedial actions. Q: Some may say that the interim report seeks to return the horse to a stable that no longer exists. By this, I mean that the old media world of linear print products and a dated public broadcaster is in rapid decline everywhere. Does the Competition Commission's interim report grapple fully with how, where and why South Africans are taking their news as they do? A: The inquiry has included in its remit an understanding of the news consumption trends as well as their impacts and has undertaken a consumer survey to deepen that understanding. Far from trying to roll back time, the inquiry is deliberately forward-looking in seeking to understand the digital consumption landscape and the media's relationship with digital platforms, and to see how the market can be adjusted to ensure a fair balance between them. This contrasts with other countries, which focus on indefinite transfers rather than changes in market conduct. DM Further reading
Russia Today
24-02-2025
- Business
- Russia Today
Google must pay South African media over $27mn annually
Google should pay South African media houses between R300 to 500 million annually over 3-5 years to address lost revenue and the imbalance in shared value. These were the findings of the Competition Commission's Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry (MDPMI) provisional report, which was released on Monday. The report called for action against search engines like Google and social media sites like Meta. The MDPMI was created and empowered by the Commission to establish an inquiry to investigate if there are features that may prevent and impede competition in the South African media landscape. Paula Fray, a panel member at the commission explained search engines like Google play a major role in helping and hurting South African media organisations. She explained that Google receives between R800 to R900 million from South African news content. The search engine, however, destroys around R160 to R200 million in potential value for South African media. 'Our assessment is that the imbalance in the share of total value is around R300 to R500 million annually,' Fray said. The inquiry also found that there is a definite bias in Google's algorithm, and this disadvantages South African media organisations in favour of international news outlets. The MDPMI found that a majority of South Africans use social media as their primary news source. The report found that platforms like X, TikTok, Meta, and YouTube drive news consumption in the country. Fray said that Meta and X have deprioritised South African posts with links and this reduces referral traffic. The report also found that South African news outlets are struggling to monetise views on YouTube in particular. James Hodge, the MDPMI chairperson said that South Africa needs to impose a 5-10% digital levy or tariff on social media and AI companies to compensate SA media for their loss in revenue. He said that search engines need to also restore referral traffic. Google needs to adjust search algorithms to support SA news media and reduce bias toward foreign platforms, Hodge explained. These search engines also need to help support monetisation. He said that Google for example needs to share anonymised user data and provide SEO assistance. In terms of direct compensation, Hodge said that Google should pay SA media houses between R300 to 500 million annually over 3-5 years to address lost revenue and the imbalance in shared value. He also added that Meta needs to stop deprioritising news on the Facebook feed to restore referral traffic to the media from its peak with at least a 100% increase in referral traffic. It is important that Meta and X also stop deprioritising news posts with links in the user feed. Lastly, Hodge said that YouTube needs to improve the ability of the media and broadcasters, including the SABC, to monetise their content on its platform through increases in the revenue share to 70% and active promotion of higher value direct sales by the published by IOL
