Unfair commercial practices by the big tech companies have negatively impacted media in South African media companies for two decades. In 2023, the South African National Editors Forum led the call to do something about it.
Sanef and other media advocacy groups urged publishers to make representations to the Competition Commission. On Monday, the Commission released its provisional Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry (MDPMI) report.
“While there are challenges that the media must face from the disruptive effect of digitalisation, the inquiry provisionally finds that these challenges are exacerbated by the conduct of platforms that hinder the ability of the news media to secure and monetise digital traffic,” it said. “These digital platforms do not produce news themselves and cannot replace journalism’s role.”
The compensation question
It suggested big tech companies such as Google, Meta (Facebook), X, TikTok and YouTube – among others – pay between R300 million and R500 million compensation over a three to five year period.
This, say publishers and Sanef, is not enough.
Pule Molebeledi, CEO of Arena Holdings, believes the number is “extremely modest”.
“It will unfortunately not assist the struggling media industry that has been fighting for survival for at least two decades since Big Tech appropriated its content without compensation,” he said.
“This amount is negligible when considering it has to be shared with so much media organisations including the public broadcaster.”
Sanef agrees. “Sanef believes the big techies ought to be held accountable for losses already incurred too. Quantitatively, the R300-500 million appears too conservative given the scale of the damage done to South African media in general,” it said in a statement, adding that the journalism workforce was “halved” during the period.
Should it come to pass, how should the money be disbursed? “That is where the difficulty lies,” said Pule. “We will require a smart mechanism to assist with the distribution and ensure equitable and fair distribution.”
Win-win situation
The report, said Molebeledi, is a “progressive response that aims to create a win-win situation to address the blatant disregard for our intellectual property by big tech companies”.
He said this was a positive step and presented a “nuanced approach between the Australian and Canadian interventions. While it is indeed bold, we could benefit from stronger measures, considering the many years of unauthorised use of our content for their own commercial gain”.
For Molebeledi, the Competition Commission’s demand that “Meta/Facebook stop de-prioritising news on Facebook “to restore referral traffic to the media from its peak with at least a 100% increase in referral traffic” was among the most important recommendations.
Anti-competitiveness stranglehold
“This is the most progressive part of the recommendation which goes to the heart of the anti-competitiveness stranglehold we have suffered and endured at the hands of the algorithms implemented by Big Tech,”he said.
“The approach allows for fairness to return as the readers will be the ultimate winners because they will have improved access to credible and trusted content. There is no doubt that this referral worked for media organisation and Meta/Facebook.”
For Sanef, the finding that freedom of expression, plurality and diversity of media, which are entrenched in our Constitution, have been seriously infringed upon was vitally important.
Community media devastated
“The impact of these tech firms has been particularly devastating for local/community media, most of which not only suffered financial losses but had to retrench workers and shut down operations with calamitous consequences,” it said.
“The Inquiry further highlights the important role played by the news media, not only concerning competition laws but also human rights, which was central to Sanef’s submissions.”
This highlighted the importance of search bias in favour of foreign media and YouTube instead the promotion of vernacular and community media.
“Part of the tragedy of the throttling of content from mainstream media by Big Tech overshadowed that damage done to community media and the development of vernacular media,” Pule explained.
“Oddly enough, the use of AI may come to the rescue of vernacular languages. Hence the issue is of fairness and complimentary existence between media and Big Tech. There is space and room for everyone but the issue is fair use, recognition and respectful access of content created by local media.”
The Commission’s recommendation that YouTube allow media and broadcasters to monetise their content on the platform and increase revenue share to 70% also found favour with Molebeledi.
“The media and broadcasters invest money in producing this content and ensure that is verified and is authenticated. The level of skills and individuals involved in curating such content is taken for granted and should be recognised. Quality journalism should be reduced to click baits and deserve better respect!” he said.
AI training
The report also touched on the incoming issue of artificial intelligence, particularly over the use of training content. The Competition Commission suggested publishers work together to negotiate with AI companies.
“I think it will be strategic for local media to collaborate and negotiate together on this issue. This is a good as it ensures all voices are on the same table at the same time and should ensure a timeous outcome,” Pule reckons.
Next step is for publishers and stakeholders to send their comments to the Competition Commission by 7 April.
“We appreciate the work done by Commission and are grateful for their considerate and bold interventions. Their work will go a long way to securing the future of the media,” Pule added.
“They have validated our views that we have been hapless victims of Intellectual property violations over decades. This is my view is unacceptable, and we welcome the work of the commission and hope policy makers will follow suit and take interest in this matter of national interest.”
