Communication professionals and researchers expressed concern, during the 1st National Journalism Week of the Brazilian Press Association (ABI), with the lack of effective regulation of calls big techs, companies responsible for digital platforms. At the same time, they are concerned about some proposals that have been put up for discussion. The event, which takes place in Rio de Janeiro, promoted this Tuesday afternoon (28) a discussion on the relationship between mainstream media, independent media and digital platforms.
According to Patrícia Maurício, a researcher at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), the major news portals currently receive a significant audience from digital platforms, either through Google search or through sharing on social networks. Thus, they need to modulate their content to suit the algorithms that govern these platforms.
“There are certain parameters that are created by Google, for example, to rank an article. It is obvious that commercial journalism goes after the audience in order to sell the advertisements that are on its website. The audience issue was already a problem in the past and today we are in a situation where it is necessary to observe the metrics, use the keywords, structure the paragraphs the way the platforms want, otherwise Google will not rank well”, watch.
The researcher points out that platforms have assumed a leading role in the distribution of news and maintain great power, since they can control the visibility that a certain subject will have, even vetoing a certain type of content. “Journalism is in the hands of digital platforms,” she adds.
Patricia points out that the big techs have business models based on data collected from users and that these technologies need to be regulated to serve the public interest. She finds worrying the level of market concentration. Although it draws attention to the growth of the Chinese platform Tik Tokshe sees a hegemony of US companies, especially Google (which includes services such as youtubeGmail, Google Meet and others, in addition to the search engine) and Meta (who manages Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp).
“They use the data of the people who are browsing to target advertising to them. You do Google searches and then they know you’re looking for a refrigerator. Then they start showing you fridge ads. And it got more sophisticated,” she explains.
“Google was creating new tools and buying other companies, such as youtube. Goal too. How does WhatsApp finance itself? It finances itself because it belongs to the same group. Even if you don’t receive an ad on Whatsapp, the data collected there will revert to advertising for you at other times”, he adds.
According to sociologist Sérgio Amadeu, television is no longer the biggest advertising destination in the world because it is more interesting to bet on the hierarchical structures of big techs. According to him, data has been collected at an unprecedented intensity and the algorithm modulates our attention, directing us to tailored ads and speeches. In this way, advertisers can buy audiences in real time. “Platforms use statistical models to try to predict our actions,” he explains.
Sérgio Amadeu considers that there has been a change in what he calls the economy of attention. “The internet reversed the flow of communication. It’s not difficult to talk. It’s about being heard,” he points out. He recognizes that the plurality of voices is greater than in the past, but ponders.
“When you expand speaking opportunities, there is greater democratic possibility. It turns out that the internet is also a distributed network. And a distributed network is not necessarily a democratic network. It also distributes surveillance, hate speech, misinformation.” The sociologist argued that technology is not neutral and has racial, social and gender implications. “Democracy needs to control the platforms that aim to monetize and format attention”.
independent media
The opening of digital platforms to dissonant voices hitherto overlooked by the hegemonic media was an aspect highlighted during the debate. Journalist Cris Gomes defends the need for adjustments in digital communication, but said it is necessary to recognize the advances. “Today we have bloggers and youtubers who talk about black people, who talk about racism and ableism, who speak in defense of indigenous peoples. These people first appeared independently to later appear in mainstream media with the weight we see today,” she noted.
Journalist Leonardo Attuch, founder and editor of the Brasil 247 portal, took a similar stance. He says that he stopped receiving state advertising resources from the Michel Temer government and that the revenue obtained from ads through the platforms allowed him to continue his journalistic work, which includes a channel on youtube christened TV 247. “Our existence was also the result of our relationship with these platforms,” he says.
He considered that the lack of neutrality of the algorithm, responsible for establishing which content will be visible and which will be hidden, is a challenge. According to Attuch, social networks, especially Facebook, have reduced the visibility of journalistic content. He demands more transparency from the big techs. At the same time, he points out that they have an infrastructure that allows the existence of independent journalism and portals that defend the democratic regime.
“I know that there are relevant discussions from the point of view of democracy. The algorithm can benefit content that generates more engagement. And engagement is often produced by hate speech, fake news, clickbait [“isca de cliques”, em tradução livre], etc”. Attuch made some proposals. “It is very difficult to discuss today the return of mandatory journalism degrees. I am in favor of a kind of certification, to upload content to the youtube that it be classified as journalism”.
Marco Civil
One proposal that raised concern among the debaters is the modification of article 19 of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet, according to which platforms cannot be held responsible for content generated by third parties, unless they fail to comply with a court order to remove a certain publication. The issue was on the agenda at a public hearing held by the Federal Supreme Court (STF).
Leonardo Attuch expressed fear that a change would reduce the plurality of the press. “If the platforms become responsible for the content that each one produces, they can, suddenly, come to the conclusion that journalism is a very sensitive content and decide to stick to entertainment alone, which does not create problems. Or just football. Journalism naturally confronts interests and generates political discussion”. he says.
For Sérgio Amadeu, article 19 does not prevent platforms from moderating content. According to the sociologist, a change in the wording will end up increasing even more the power of the big techs instead of reducing it.
