The ‘attention economy’ phenomenon is not new in itself. However, with the invasion of digital technologies into the media and information environment, this business model has benefited from the possibilities for covert large-scale data collection and algorithmic processing, expanding still further the possibilities for profiling and micro-targeting. Embracing various uses of algorithmic systems and processes to manage and retain the attention of individuals and groups in the pursuit of economic or other interests, it now produces critical and multi-layered impacts on freedom of expression and on information environment.
Such use of digital technologies impacts freedom of expression at several levels.
At the individual level, behaviours and communication patterns are increasingly facilitated, structured and shaped by online platforms and social media. Digital platforms and social media absorb much of the audiences’ attention that the media used to have. Their emphasis on speed and quantity has changed news consumption behaviours of individuals, leading to the shortening of attention span, erosion of trust in the news brands and growing news avoidance.
In the context of newsrooms and media outlets, micro-targeting techniques have revolutionised the news ecosystem, leading to the emergence and empowerment of new actors, including social media platforms, and to the prevalence of a business model that prioritises “clicks” over readers’ trust. This has reversed the flow of revenues, and advertising revenues in particular, prompting a structural shift within media markets and putting into question the sustainability of traditional media, also undermining conditions and incentives for quality journalism. News outlets are compelled to keep up with the speed of digital platforms’ content production, which drains quality from news, leads to the loss of control over curation and news choice and takes away energy for fact-checking and debunking mis- and disinformation.
At the broader societal level, including in political communication, algorithmic systems and data-based micro-targeting tools shape our social, economic and political lives, affect our governance and influence the distribution of resources. They amplify viral and disputable content, more easily shared, and generate more revenues for data-hungry business models. Faced with unprecedented volumes of content, it is increasingly difficult for individuals to discern what is true and whom to believe. This causes confusion, contributes to information disorder and impacts negatively on society’s trust in the media and in democratic institutions more broadly.
The overall impact on the information ecosystem remains largely underestimated. While regulatory efforts are directed at the consequences (disinformation, hate speech, and other problematic content online), causes (amplification of data exploitation and flourishing of business models based on opaque algorithmic processing of data) remain largely unaddressed. Reliance on, often badly defined and badly designed, self-regulation by business platforms that make vast profits out of this model creates conditions for these actors actors to only introduce measures that leave the business model intact, irrespective of its actual negative impacts. Alongside this, focus on the speed of deletion of possibly illegal or harmful online content translates into real risks to human rights, freedom of expression being the first on the list.
With growing awareness among wider audiences, we witness the emergence of business initiatives that respond to the demand for digital services respectful of human rights and allowing internet users to take control over their personal data (DuckDuckGo , for instance, offers a search engine that doesn’t track users, as well as privacy tools that block third-party trackers and force encryption when browsing). Renouncing data exploitation, such services invest in transparency to gain customers’ trust and rely on alternative sources of revenues (e.g., contextual ads). With forces unequal as they are, compared to major digital platforms, such initiatives have nevertheless proved their economic viability and public demand.
To make the way forward, a wider awareness of the false dichotomy between the amount of collected data and economic viability of digital platforms, as well as awareness about actual root causes of disruptions in the media and information environment should be promoted.
To address these root causes, steps should be taken to ensure digital platforms’ accountability for the business model they employ. Co-regulatory approaches should be promoted (see Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation (2018)2 on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries) and further complemented by oversight mechanisms and indicators (see Ranking Digital Rights’ Corporate Accountability Index and indicators evaluating company disclosure of policies and practices affecting freedom of expression and privacy; see also Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation (2020)1 on the human rights impacts of algorithmic systems), to ensure due transparency. Careful and frequently reviewed regulation of content curation/moderation is needed (see the ongoing work of the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on Freedom of Expression and Digital Technologies).
For the media ecosystem to recover, media outlets need [market and regulatory environment which permits them] to reassert control over technology and create their own distribution platforms, regain attention relying on quality content and established relationship with audiences. Journalism should [be given the preconditions permitting it to] reinvent and reassert itself, both in terms of being fully equipped to keep up with professional standards in the digital age and in terms of relevance, topicality and capability to elicit interest and engagement from the audiences. Indicators for quality journalism are needed to boost quality and trust (see draft Recommendation on promoting a favourable environment for quality journalism in the digital age, prepared by the Council of Europe Committee of experts on quality journalism in the digital age).
