Did Google and Facebook kill journalism?: This is how they affect the quality of democracy and individual rights

It is one of the best examples of Unfair technological competition, ignorance and mismanagement which led to the almost killing of an essential organ of democracy such as the press. It all started with a big lie: Google was born in a garage with the only vision of “index” the world. Let us remember that the internet was incipient, withdrawn and underestimated, therefore, what happened there did not matter at that time.

Google ingested in its database all the content generated and published by others without ASK ANYONE FOR PERMISSION. Thus violating the law of intellectual property: that the information be public, does not mean that you can take it and use it for your own purposes without paying for it. But since it happened on the internet, it hardly mattered.

And then nobody protested because Google Already positioned As such, it was door to the world.

To press she was convinced that she was going to reach inhospitable places, the promise to return them global media they made these trifles as an infraction of the law of intellectual property It was a lesser evil, a kind of collateral damage or side effect.

Did Google and Facebook kill journalism?

Google and the same verse they did to the music industry

The piracy on Napster “wasn’t piracy” because it happens on the internet and “it’s not going to affect the record industry, on the contrary, it’s going to generate more public than ever because it’s going to bring together audiences impossible to reach in any other way” (Mr. the verse?).

Therefore, musicians and record companies were invited to turn a blind eye to crime of which they were victims. Even any legal action could be frowned upon.

Until one day in the year 2000, Lars Ulrrich (leader of Metallica) accused to Napster’s promote the piracy.

This event was unthinkable: a super metal band accusing and paying the political cost to point out the program we all used for download music illegally.

Does Google affect democratic quality and individual rights?

They were accused of being millionaires, of having sold themselves to capital and other imbecilities more typical of the effervescence of that subversive adolescence that had the internet and that we all, ALL, used in our favor although this cause harm to the other.

going back to the press: for 2008 when we begin to notice the disaster it would cause Google, and now added Facebook, it was late.

The media they measured their success in the urinal of the audience ranking. They were shaking and shaking sheets of audience rankings and rubbing them in their faces.

While this was happening, Google unfolded all his advertising machinery. He had, for example, in Argentina an army of sale publicity greater than the bodies commercial of all the diaries from the country. Google was beginning to eat from the same plate as the media.

Let’s stop here.

Is Google to blame for being successful and having better technology for advertisers than the media?

No but Google does not recognize economically that if Google had not ingested from the media all the quality content that their results show, Google would not be so Useful and it would never have become Google.

Google was born in a garage with the sole vision of “indexing” the world

But you are not obliged to be in Google?

This is the main excuse that Google makes: if you in your place you put a file with the order Noindex, Google does not intake the contents…This is now, but when Google ingested the world, it did so without asking permission.

Let’s get down to reality: imagine that I’m kicking all the doors on the block and listing everything that’s inside the houses, and if someone is bothered by it, I reply that “if you don’t want me to come into your house to take notes, put a little sign on the door that says ´Julito, don´t enter´”. It’s unbelievable but that’s the excuse. What right does it give me to go kicking doors without asking permission?

Now we are all in the bathroom in front of the urinal and it is impossible to get out of it if we don’t all do it at the same time.

When Google Y Facebook they kept more than 80% of the advertising that fed the media, they could no longer pay taxis to cover stories, for journalists who would investigate for weeks without publishing a story, do journalistic guards or cover issues that did not generate a traffic help them shake the media ranking sheet.

There was never a better time to be a narco or a corrupt politician than this. Almost all the media they are starving, not only does the poor transition from print to digital but also the lack of resources and the need for money made them more vulnerable never.

The main victim is the sovereign and the democratic quality in which he lives.

In most of the media there is no longer room for reflection and the search for the truth that bothers and persecutes the bad guys.

In countries like Mexico, this situation of vulnerability is paid for with the blood of journalists who have already lost the battle against the bad guys and move on, earning misery and putting the most valuable thing that a human being has, which is their life.

Google Y Facebook They have responsibility for this.

Google and Facebook kept more than 80% of the advertising that fed the media

Who made silence for this to happen?

In Europewhere the law is respected and the media have suitable people in charge of their interests, accused Google Y it they forced to pay to press million euros in compensation by copyright violation.

In Latin America the situation is different.

So much Google What Facebook were Gold Sponsors of all journalistic institutions and events. Paying for the drink, the stage, the sandwiches that the chosen ones enjoyed. A kind of party on the bow of the Titanic that almost all the associations participated. from the international Wan Ifra to the local adepa and passing through organizations of journalists such as Fopea.

Never, in any of the events was the subject touched Affectation of Google and Facebook in the press. Only once in two decades, in Fopea, and it was given by the writer.

kept silence: They also did not take any legal action for copyright violation as it was done in Europe.

In most of the media, journalists were not even trained to understand this issue. The affectations of the technology Y SEO about the product were motorized by the press itself.

In Europe they forced Google to pay the press millions of euros in compensation for copyright infringement

In some cases, journalists were taught to write for algorithms and not for humans. From the side they lowered the line of “people read less” without asking if what they write has the quality enough for encourage reading. How many courses narrative gave in contrast to SEO courses? And if you write for algorithms because you want me to pay a subscription to your medium?

Perhaps there is someone distracted who has never been through a drafting paper, but the journalists had a story, 4,000 characters a day, and they spent hours putting together the perfect sentences that would tell, along with a headline and photo, the story they had been amassing all day. All that time invested was in quality. Then an editor approved or rejected it and a spell and style checker put the finishing touches on it. In most newsrooms, that quality does not exist today: “ah, but people read less.”

To all this aberration was added Youtube, which is a den of piracy.

You can find movies, chapters, fragments of material whose owner does not receive anything from advertising that interrupts the contents and that fills the coffers of these technologies.

Imagine that I set up a television channel and without paying for the rights I put on the air the saga of The Godfather, Star Trek, along with Breaking Bad and at night I put on pornographic content. would have more audience than Susana Giménez in the 90s. But you can only do this if you are a technological.

The social networks What Facebook, Youtube, Instagram and search engines like Google I know legally protect in a law called “safe harbor” that was born as a response to the accusation about a internet service provider in the United States in which it was wanted to be held responsible for damage caused by a user on a website.

It’s like accusing your internet provider because you hacked a site.

Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Google are legally covered by a law called “safe harbor”

From this “safe harbor” law and of no responsibility of what its users do is where the technological ones are sustained.

But an internet service provider or phone company is not the same as a social network.

Let’s get down to the specific level: if I set up a nightclub and the users sell drugs and stab someone inside and this happens minute after minute, the place is responsible for the safety of the people inside and cannot be protected by any law of ” Safe Harbor”.

That the technological ones eat the taxi business is one thing, but the press they are not taxis. They are a necessary organ for democratic quality of the countries, on the verge of extinction because with the resources they have and the quality, they are all affected in some way and, in some cases, it is no longer journalism otherwise survival.

This is yet another case where they run technology by left.

Leave a Comment