Photo credit: www.technologyreview.com
Governments are increasingly demonstrating a willingness to manage the interactions between content producers and aggregators, moving away from their previous hesitance to intervene in the digital realm.
Nevertheless, mandatory bargaining presents a simplistic solution to a multifaceted issue. Current reforms favor a limited subset of news organizations, based on the premise that platforms like Google and Meta benefit at the expense of publishers. However, the extent to which traffic on these platforms derives from news content remains ambiguous, with estimates varying from 2% to 35% for search queries, and a mere 3% of social media feeds. Importantly, these platforms also provide substantial advantages to publishers by enhancing the visibility of their content, leading to a lack of consensus over how to fairly distribute this mutual benefit. The controversial nature of the four bargaining codes extends to regulating not just the reproduction of news content, but also its indexing and linking. This regulation could undermine the “ability to link freely” that forms the foundation of the internet. Additionally, these bargaining guidelines, which primarily focus on traditional media outlets—numbering only 1,400 in Canada, 1,500 in the EU, and 62 in Australia—overlook many everyday creators who drive online engagement through blogs, videos, podcasts, and social media interactions.
Despite its flaws, mandatory bargaining may present a viable response to the challenges posed by AI-driven searches. The rationale for intervention strengthens in this context; unlike conventional search methods, which solely index and display small excerpts of content, AI search technologies can generate summaries that potentially replace the original sources, leading to diminished traffic and visibility for traditional websites. Recent data indicates that over a third of Google searches do not result in any clicks, a trend that can be expected to grow in AI-enhanced search environments. This development simplifies the economic equation: given that only select sources contribute to each response, it becomes easier for platforms—and potential mediators—to track which creators significantly influence engagement and revenue.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of any proposed solution lies in its implementation. Well-intended but poorly structured mandatory bargaining agreements may fail to satisfactorily address the underlying issues, benefiting only a few while hindering the free flow of information online.
Industry has a narrow window to build a fairer reward system
The mere possibility of regulatory action could exert a more significant influence than any reform itself. AI companies are becoming aware of the potential consequences of litigation morphing into regulatory measures. For instance, businesses like Perplexity AI, OpenAI, and Google are already entering agreements with publishers and content providers, some of which address AI training concerns while others focus on the implications of AI search. However, as witnessed in earlier bargaining examples, these partnerships tend to serve a select few firms, some of which (including Reddit) have yet to ensure adequate revenue sharing with their content creators.
This approach of selective accommodation is unsustainable. It overlooks the vast array of online creators who lack the capacity to withdraw from AI search frameworks and who do not possess the negotiating leverage typically granted to established publishers. Such a strategy reduces the urgency for substantial reform by pacifying vocal detractors and endorsing a handful of AI companies through confidential and convoluted commercial arrangements. This dynamic may render it increasingly difficult for newcomers to attain comparable terms, possibly resulting in the establishment of a new generation of search monopolies. Over time, it could incentivize AI firms to prefer lower-cost, less reputable sources in lieu of nurturing quality and more expensive news content, promoting a culture of uncritical information consumption.
Instead of taking this route, the AI sector should prioritize frameworks that offer proportional rewards to all creators who contribute meaningful content. Platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, and X have showcased their capability to implement innovative compensation models for diverse creators within intricate content ecosystems. A balanced approach to monetizing common content stands as a essential goal of the “web3” movement, which garners support from venture capitalists. This rationale is extendable to the domain of AI search as well; if search queries yield significant engagement, yet users neglect to click on source links, commercial AI search platforms should develop methods for recognizing and redistributing that value to creators on a larger scale.
Admittedly, it’s possible that the framework of our digital economy was flawed from the outset. Relying on a trickle-down advertising model may prove unworkable, and the attention economy could pose genuine threats to privacy, trust, and democratic integrity. Supporting quality journalism and innovative content may necessitate alternate forms of investment or motivational structures.
Nonetheless, the quest for a more equitable digital economy should not be abandoned. The advent of AI search underscores the urgency for reform as well as the potential for establishing a robust system of value sharing. Stakeholders within the AI industry must capitalize on this moment to cultivate a fair, intelligent, and scalable reward mechanism. Should they choose not to, governments now possess the frameworks—and the assurance—to implement their interpretation of shared value.
Benjamin Brooks is a fellow at the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard, examining the regulatory and legislative landscape surrounding AI. His prior role involved leading public policy for Stability AI, a company focused on developing open models for varied forms of media creation. His opinions do not necessarily reflect those of any associated organization, present or past.
Source
www.technologyreview.com