Opinion power control and diversity monitoring in the platform age

Diversity is a key democratic norm, which is reflected in the idea that journalistic diversity is indispensable for the free formation of individual and public opinion and thus for the functioning of democracies. Ideally, the media should provide a wide range of information and opinions on relevant socio-political topics, on the basis of which citizens should form their own, well-founded opinions. This is why ensuring diversity has been the objective of media regulation for decades: In terms of media policy, the aim is to prevent dominant opinion power, i.e. certain actors, groups or individuals from exerting too much influence on opinion-forming processes [8].

In the digital age, platforms such as the Google search engine, but also social networks such as Facebook, Instagram, X and TikTok, are increasingly gaining power in terms of opinion. On the one hand, they have become so important as infrastructures that media can no longer avoid distributing their content via the platforms. As a result, media providers are forced to adapt their content to the logic of the platforms [3], which has a potentially negative impact on the quality of the content (e.g. its diversity). On the other hand, platforms are powerful because their personalisation algorithms essentially codetermine which content is received by recipients – and therefore the content on which citizens form their opinions online. In this context, it is often feared that platforms (excessively) restrict the diversity used [5], [6].

This poses considerable challenges for the control of opinion power, with regulation focussing primarily on a negative form of diversity protection [4]. This is based on the assumption that a sufficiently high diversity of different media providers guarantees the necessary diversity of content in the opinion-forming process [2], [8]. In Germany, this approach is represented by media concentration law, which, with its focus on television and lack of inclusion of platforms, must be regarded as outdated (see section on comparability with analogue phenomena). In addition, there are regulations that prohibit platforms from unobjectively discriminating against journalistic and editorial content (Interstate Media Treaty (MStV)). At European level, regulatory requirements are primarily imposed on the transparency of platform logic (MStV, Digital Services Act (DSA)) and due diligence obligations (especially for very large platforms, e.g. audits, see DSA) [4].

A major problem for regulation is that there are currently no systematic findings on the power of opinion of providers and platforms that provide important empirical evidence for media policy to evaluate regulatory legislative proposals. The modular, continuous opinion power monitor can close this gap [7]. It pursues a holistic approach that takes a holistic view of media supply, media use and media effects. The aim is to identify potential restrictions on diversity on the supply and usage side: For example, observations from the supply perspective provide an overview of the diversity of (overall) reporting or on specific topics in terms of content analysis and thus information on how viable the basis for individual and public opinion-forming processes is. Data from the user perspective, in turn, can show the extent to which (ideally) diverse reporting is received by the audience and thus becomes a real resource for opinion-forming processes. A central object of investigation here is the influence platforms have on the diversity used by users, for which the automated tracking of digital behavioural data has proven to be a fruitful approach. As part of a survey, all online usage is recorded so that it is possible to recognise, for example, which users accessed which services and content in which ways (e.g. directly or via platforms), how long they spent there and how diverse online usage was overall [1]. However, it is only possible to determine how powerful platforms actually are in terms of opinion by comparing them with offline usage. The Opinion Power Monitor can therefore provide urgently needed empirical evidence that enables media policy makers to review their regulatory approaches and consequently identify where there may be a need for additional regulation.

Comparability with analogue phenomena

With its approach of ensuring negative plurality, the decades-old, television-centred media concentration law has long been a model for the control of platforms’ power of opinion. It aims to prevent dominant power of opinion by preventing excessive concentration of providers on the television market and related markets. This is based on the assumption that diversity of providers leads to diversity of content and, in particular, diversity of opinion. Dominant power of opinion is assumed in media concentration law in accordance with the audience share model from a provider’s market share of 30 or 25 per cent. Media concentration law has long been criticised. For example, the basic assumption that ensuring a diversity of offerings automatically translates into a great diversity of opinions must be questioned. Furthermore, it cannot be applied to platforms, as they do not produce content themselves but curate it for users [2], [5]. In addition, monopoly positions, such as those held by Google on the search engine market, are already so cemented that it seems unlikely that they can be broken up.

The key difference is therefore that analogue media concentration law has a limited scope of application (television), while diversity monitoring in the platform age must adopt a holistic perspective that encompasses both content producers and distributors. This approach is supported by the digital enablers of generating and processing large amounts of data, automation and ubiquitous availability: Digital platforms store and process an enormous amount of data from users; among other things, their informational usage behaviour can be tracked automatically. The ubiquitous availability of these data volumes can be used by science and regulation for continuous and evidence-based opinion power monitoring (see section: Explanation of the edge phenomenon).

Social relevance

The social relevance of controlling the power of opinion and safeguarding diversity in the platform age must be regarded as very high. In terms of the use of politically relevant information, platforms have become an integral part of most people’s daily lives, which is why they must be taken into account from the perspective of normative democratic theory. As mentioned above, opinion-forming processes are essential for functioning democracies, which is why all actors who can potentially influence them must become the focus of regulation. Therefore, a holistic safeguarding of diversity that takes platforms into account must be considered one of the central tasks of media policy regulation.

---