Explosive! The Swiss state and the media want to work together to “regulate” virtual communication networks and search engines
Platform power and opinion formation: How the state wants to expand its control
The press release from the Swiss Federal Media Commission (EMEK) dated January 14, 2025 (found here) highlights the immense power of online platforms such as virtual communication networks and search engines. These have a significant influence on public opinion formation and democracy. The EMEK calls for stricter regulations to limit the market and opinion power of the platforms. But what at first glance appears to be a protection of democratic values, on closer inspection harbors the risk of increased state control over public opinion formation, in cooperation with established media. Instead of promoting diversity of opinion, such measures could lead to centralized interpretive sovereignty.
The State as the New Gatekeeper
The EMEK emphasizes that platforms such as virtual communication networks and search engines have considerable market and opinion power. This power should be limited through regulation – but who will take on this task? It is the state that ultimately wants to act as the new “gatekeeper”. The planned focus on the regulation of algorithms, the monitoring of platform content and the establishment of independent supervisory bodies indicates a shift in power: away from private platforms and towards state and institutional actors.
Such measures would enable state institutions to exert direct influence on the content shown on platforms. Under the guise of “promoting democratic values,” undesirable content could be censored and alternative opinions marginalized.
What is controversial is the composition of the Federal Media Commission (EMEK), whose members mostly have close ties to large media companies or established players in the media industry. With representatives from Tamedia, the SRG and the NZZ, the interests of the powerful media groups are strongly represented, while alternative or independent voices are lacking. This one-sided composition raises the question of whether the proposed regulatory measures are actually in the spirit of a pluralistic diversity of opinion or rather in the interest of the established media structures. It is reasonable to suspect that the EMEK’s recommendations could primarily serve to secure the power of the traditional players and further marginalize smaller, independent platforms. This contradicts the claim to strengthen democratic values and freedom of expression.
The Role of Established Media
Another aspect is the close connection between state actors and the established media. The media landscape in many countries is strongly interwoven with state funding and regulation. Public broadcasters and traditional print media could be privileged by such measures, while independent or alternative media are pushed even further to the margins.
For example, the EMEK proposes clearly regulating access to platforms for media companies. This could lead to large, established media companies being given preferential treatment, while smaller, independent voices have a harder time being heard in the digitalised public.
Danger of interpretive sovereignty
A central point of criticism is the danger that the state, together with the established media, will establish a sovereignty over public opinion. The regulation of algorithms and content could be used to promote certain narratives and suppress others. This carries the risk that public discourse will become one-sided and diversity of opinion will be lost.
The close interrelationship between the state, media and research – another aspect that the EMEK addresses – exacerbates this problem. If platforms and their content are controlled by state rules and political lobbying, this could lead to inconvenient truths no longer coming to light.
Censorship under the pretext of security
The planned regulations raise fears that they could not only limit the market and opinion-forming power of the platforms, but also impair the freedom of users. Control over algorithms and the personalized display of content is presented as a protective measure to prevent manipulation and abuse. But who decides what is manipulative or socially relevant? This power ultimately lies with the state authorities and the actors they favor.
Alternative Approaches for Real Freedom of Expression
Instead of putting control of platforms in the hands of the state and the established media, alternative solutions could be developed that actually promote freedom of expression:
- Transparency instead of control: Platforms could be required to disclose their algorithms without direct state intervention.
- Promoting decentralised platforms: Independent platforms could be promoted to create a more diverse media landscape.
- Strengthening personal responsibility: Users should be enabled through educational programs to critically question content instead of relying on pre-selected information.
- Ensuring pluralism: Instead of favoring established media, alternative voices should also be given fair access to platforms.
Conclusion: Control instead of freedom
At first glance, the EMEK’s measures appear to be intended to protect democratic values. But on closer inspection, it becomes clear that they could primarily serve to expand the influence of the state and the established media on public opinion formation. There is a danger that, under the pretext of regulating platform power, freedom of expression will be restricted and one-sided interpretive sovereignty will be established.
If truly democratic values and diversity of opinion are to be protected, approaches are needed that promote transparency and personal responsibility – not that strengthen the power of the state and the media.
yogaesoteric
January 24, 2025