Saturday, October 27th, 2018
We are repeatably told that any attempt to make the internet fair, to close the value gap or ask large platforms to play fair will “break the internet”, because measures, or policies that limit infringement are not viable. Below is a far from complete compilation of some filters currently active on the internet.
The internet runs on filters. Without filters, the internet would break down. Here’s some of them.
Tuesday, September 4th, 2018
In June 2018, the European Parliament received an unprecedented number of automated emails, with some MEPs reporting 40,000 emails crashing their inbox in a short space of time. The net effect was many were classified as spam given the content was “cookie cutter”, and the emails sending the messages could not be reached, or verified. In the weeks that followed, an investigation has uncovered a warren of deceit and finance for the campaign of robo-calls, spam emails and auto-tweets against the Copyright directive that leads back to N-Squared, Google and cohorts with many saying these organisations were responsible for spamming MEPs – a hack on democracy. Suffice to say, MEPs were not impressed.
To view the infographic in hi-resolution please click here
Thursday, January 25th, 2018
Threats to media plurality and the concentration of media ownership are the focus of Newsocracy 3: an event hosted by the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom in Madrid on January 30th.
Who owns the media, who directs the narratives and is there full transparency of each pillar of a free press?
While the event is focused on European democracies, just twenty years ago it was America that led the way in media plurality guaranteeing that no one owner could dominate press and TV in a region. Cross-owning a newspaper and TV station in the same local market was barred.
These rules were abolished during the Clinton era, and pale when compared to the dominance of the platform players – the gatekeepers of information – that are Google, Facebook and to a similar effect Amazon and the hold on publishing (not to mention the Washington Post). Now it’s the norm in the USA for a local newspaper to have monopolistic dominance. There’s usually only one main newspaper. Gone are the plethora of voices, or the freesheets for alternative views.
In Europe, be it Hungary or Spain, or slightly further afield in Turkey; government are increasingly part of the problem. Newsocracy looks at these pernicious erosions. The threats, violence and persecution of journalists and government influence on press at large, both latent and statute.
ECPMF brings together policy makers, academics, journalists, citizens and existing initiatives to discuss the questions of press freedom, and ownership in Spain and Europe.
The day starts with Media Pluralism: innovations and challenges.
Yolanda Quintana, General Secretary and coordinator, Plataforma en Defensa de la Libertad de Información (PDLI), is the first of four lightening talks, entitled: New Challenges for Pluralism: Internet and the new monopolies.
Renowned Turkish TV-anchor, Banu Güven will present on media ownership in Turkey, and controls on journalists. There’s a look at the success of eldiario.es with their new business model for Media Pluralism led by Juan Luis Sánchez, (Deputy Editor, eldiario.es), and there’s discussion of the role of technology plays to increase transparency in the media.
Ana Ormaechea covers “Journalism Startups and Media Pluralism in Europe, followed by a Q&A.
Session two features Chiara Sighele of Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT), Dr Adolfo Antón Bravo from Datalab at Medialab-Prado, Marius Dragomir, Director at CEU Center for Media, Data and Society and openDemocracy editor-in-chief Mary Fitzgerald. They are joined by Olaf Steenfadt from Reporters without Borders and will be Investigating media ownership: best practices from Europe.
Regulation and how to taper political influence and ensure media independence come in session three. Understanding the role of journalists, but also how policy makers at EU and national level should regulate – including public service broadcasters is the theme.
Attendees will have the chance to participate in an open discussion towards the conclusion Newsocracy, prior to closing speeches from ECPMF MD Dr Lutz Kinkel and fellow hosts Virginia P. Alonso and Pablo Soto.
Newsocracy is hosted by the ECPMF, PDLI and OBCT and takes places at Medialab-Prado, Calle de la Alameda, 15, 28014 Madrid, Spain. It’s free to attend, register here.
Tuesday, December 12th, 2017
Three questions to Börje Hansson, co-founder of independent film production company Bright Pictures
1. What would be the impact on the film producers of current EU-policy proposals on territorial licensing?
We are very worried that our ability to agree territorial licensing to raise capital to produce films and TV content will be compromised to a degree where we simply cannot fund the budgets to match our creative ambitions. We also stand to lose the focused local marketing exclusive distributors undertake in foreign markets – creating a local audience for our films and TV content. The various efforts from EU institutions to erode territorial exclusivity would tear down the very business model of the European film industry – but territorial exclusivity is the commercial reality of film industries across the world.
EU institutions should recognize that cultural and creative diversity, jobs in the film and TV sectors and sustainable businesses are important political goals which should not be compromised
By proposing to limit our ability to work with territorial exclusivity in the European Union, the European film industry is then placed as a competitive disadvantage while territorial exclusivity can be deployed elsewhere in the world.
2. What would you like to see instead?
EU institutions should recognize that cultural and creative diversity, jobs in the film and TV sectors and sustainable businesses are important political goals which should not be compromised by trying to address unsubstantiated demand for cross-border access. That is why I and several of my European producer and distributor colleagues have written to the EU institutions to remind them of their responsibilities both to our sector and to our audiences.
3. Don’t you agree that Europe needs a digital single market to be globally competitive?
Creativity and cultural diversity are Europe’s best cards in a global market place. A good story well told is the key ingredient for success and we work hard every day with our creative partners to deliver that to our audiences.
Thursday, December 7th, 2017
European consumers are a myriad of individuals who want different things, have different purchasing power, different cultures and different tastes or priorities. When we make policy for the Digital Single Market, this diversity must be fully acknowledged.
At the moment, the freedom to grant and acquire territorial exclusive rights in content licensing is at the heart of the European debate. Territoriality is not strictly a business interest. It is just as important for the consumers.
European consumers want content services in their first language, packaged and delivered according to local preference, with a reasonable price that is calculated based on local demand and purchasing power.
European consumers want content services in their first language, packaged and delivered according to local preference, with a reasonable price that is calculated based on local demand and purchasing power. This is not restricted to locally produced content but also highly relevant to content with a Europe-wide appeal, such as sports.
Look at the example of the German football league, the Bundesliga. It is very popular with viewers in Poland, who pay around 5 Euros per month for their subscription, with commentary in Polish and a clear focus on Polish players. The same games are available for German viewers in Germany for around 35 Euros per month, with German commentary and no special focus on players from neighbouring countries. Without territorial exclusive licensing, the Polish games would be available for German viewers at a fraction of the price.
It goes without saying that the Broadcasters would have to make adjustments to meet this new demand. Predictably, Bundesliga would be forced to licence on a pan-European basis with the consequence that the price for Polish subscriptions would rise to the German level.
Such a development benefits no consumer. On the contrary, it is detrimental for them.
The same applies for TV series and audiovisual productions where territorial licensing is often the only way to create enough value to finance projects and programmes of quality, that meet the expectation of consumers. Such a development benefits no consumer. On the contrary, it is detrimental for them.
Moreover, the Portability Regulation (which enters into force in April 2018) has taken into account consumer interests to legally access premium content across borders. It enhances the possibilities for expats and linguistic minorities temporarily present in another Member State to enjoy the content and online music and TV services of their choice cross-border.
The discussion about the Digital Single Market has focused too much on an assumed demand for cross-border access and not enough on the consumer interest of locally tailored content. According to the European Commission’s own research* merely 8% of consumers demand cross-border content, while two thirds of consumers only watch film and television in their own language. Let us take this perspective into consideration as we proceed to make decisions on the Digital Single Market in the upcoming votes.
We are saddened to point out that, following recognised and well-established steps in decision-making is an important principle in any policy development and not least in Europe. European Parliament votes on its mandate first, then the negotiations with the Council over the final text begins. Representatives of other institutions should not interfere with the European Parliaments votes, just as the members of European Parliament do not interfere with how the other institutions develop proposals or come to their trilogue positions. Respect for the independence of Institutions is a foundation of the European project.
Let’s create a digital single market with consumer diversity in mind.
Brussels, December 7
Signed
Bogdan WENTA, EPP
Angelika NIEBLER, EPP
Tadeusz ZWIEFKA, EPP
Jean-Marie CAVADA, ALDE
Sajjad KARIM, ECR
Marc TARABELLA, S&D
Helga TRÜPEL, Greens / EFA
Robert ROCHEFORT, ALDE
Pervenche BERÈS, S&D
Axel VOSS, EPP
Joëlle BERGERON, EFDD
Christian EHLER, EPP
Virginie ROZIÈRE, S&D
Hannu TAKKULA, ALDE
Sabine VERHEYEN, EPP
Marc JOULAUD, EPP
Georgios GRAMMATIKAKIS, S&D
Silvia COSTA, S&D
Santiago FISAS AYXELÀ, EPP
Stefano MAULLU, EPP
Source: European Commission’s 2015 Eurobarometer Report on Cross-border access to online content
Tuesday, March 28th, 2017
Welcome to the New World* is the title of an essay by Mathilde Ramadier, telling the story of how she survived the “coolitude” of startups in Berlin’s version of Silicon Valley. Netopia asked for more.
Netopia: You have interesting thoughts about Silicon Valley’s language. There is a lot of “fantasy”, you say, behind the words associated with start-ups and the Silicon Valley. You talk about “heroism”, “new world”, “imagination”… Why don’t you like “unicorns”? Everybody likes unicorns…
MR: I like unicorns! As long as we are talking about them in the context of art history or pure imagination. Don’t you think it’s ironic that we use a chimera which never existed (and probably never will) to describe a real socioeconomic phenomenon? Isn’t it symptomatic for our world which is so deeply concerned with crisis? Besides, as we all know, a fantasy has to remain a fantasy because it belongs to the unconscious and it isn’t necessarily desirable for a fantasy to suddenly become reality.
I think it is problematic and dangerous that unicorns became a symbol for the kind of success that everybody pursues in the startup-sphere, a kind of Holy Grail that tends to be the only approved and acclaimed model of success: to get a Billion-dollar valuation. To achieve this extremely difficult goal—I don’t say it’s easy to build a startup—people need to believe in a mythology which includes their entire being. Therefore, they are convinced they have a mission to fulfill, they have to be the “hero” of an “adventure” they “share” with a “family” to “change the society” and “make the world a better place”… But how many startups have really made the world a better place than maybe a few isolated branches of society?
Netopia: For all the talk of “changing the world”, “free services”, “collaborative economy” and so on, how come Silicon Valley is so obsessed with money: seed rounds, equity, venture capital etc? Which is the more important driving force?
MR: I think that the conscious, official driving force is the strong pious willingness to change the world by disrupting a sector. Then you can be part of history, we can say there was a “before you” and an “after you”, which is flattering of course. But honestly, I think it is closely related to a more unconscious desire, which is the very basic equation: money = power.
Startuppers pretend to operate a revolution, but their desires are the very same as those of their predecessors.
Startuppers pretend to be game-changers, to operate a revolution, a radical break with the old corporate world, but their desires are the very same as those of their predecessors. Nobody wants to create a business which will stay poor and make no money… But look at the richest CEOs in the Silicon Valley. OK, their image is no longer that of vulgar Ferraris, but of smart hybrid ecofriendly cars. OK, they don’t wear ostentatious trendy clothes but hoodies, t-shirts and sneakers because they are cool and “humble”. But this is only because the symbols have been displaced within this new mythology. We read more and more stories of ridiculous paranoid behaviors and egotistical plans of CEOs who are for example buying up huge pieces of land in New Zealand with an airstrip for their private jets, or high-tech bunkers to hide in once the apocalypse has arrived. It is worth noting that these are the same people who pretend to be shaping a better future!
Netopia: You think that countries – such as yours; France – shouldn’t dream about becoming a “start-up nation” reflecting GAFA’s model. What else could it be? Do you feel that its potential could rely elsewhere?
MR: I consider both France and Germany as my countries: being French and living in Berlin makes me feel attached to both countries. However, the situation is quite different in the two countries. Berlin was faster than Paris in becoming a famous and attractive startup scene because of a lot of factors: liberal, more attractive to young people, more international, more multilingual, cheap and qualified workforce, lower real estate value, better tax rates for entrepreneurs, better life quality and unicorns lurking around every corner… But jokes apart, the phenomenon and the mythology I am talking about in my book is now global and concerns every western capital city or country which aspires to become a startup nation. It simply renewed the old American dream as a version 2.0 of capitalism.
I am not against startups as such. I believe in the digital age, I use the Internet and new technologies and I think we need innovation. But is innovation really defined as just another startup delivering meals at home, abusing poor guys biking around on their own bicycles? What will be the next fancy app, offering something nobody actually needs and using the availability and frailty of a new proletariat—whom one still does not dare to name so? If disruption is only possible at the price of ignoring and disrespecting all the achievements to protect workers which society has fought for so hard since the beginning of industrial age, then I would not call it disruption but rather regression!
I argue in favor of more maturity, retreat and reflection on these issues, rather than blindly following a model that already shows its obvious flaws. Some specialists talk about a startup bubble. I think that it is not just an economic bubble, there is also a social bubble that needs to blow up soon.
Netopia: A last one maybe… You want more “humility, maturity and respect” in the collaborative economy and less “smileys, care bears and unicorns”. Just as a bit of mischief: if you had to choose one emoji to address Silicon Valley… Which one would it be?
MR: Whereas Silicon Valley would probably like to see the unicorn emoji, I would rather send them the turtle.
Personally, I prefer animals that are more modest, realistic and basically more alive than unicorns. The turtle and the elephant are my favorite totem pets. They are wise, slow and we know that in the end, they live the longest and cross the finish line before the rabbit, as the fable tells us…
* Netopia’s translation
You can buy Bienvenue Dans Le Nouveau Monde, Comment J’ai Survécu à La Coolitude Des Start-ups. Mathilde Ramadier here.
