South Africa Decries Platform Abuse of National News Media: Compensation, Collaboration, or Remuneration?

By Santiago Marino, Research Associate at OBSERVACOM.

The South African Competition Commission affirmed that Google and Meta engage in anticompetitive behavior in its interim report on the digital media and platforms market. Although a final resolution to the case is still pending, the agency anticipates the need to establish obligations for large platforms. These include reducing the use of algorithms that affect the circulation and visibility of national media outlets, and their ability to generate revenue. The South African case once again highlights the relationship between platforms and news media.

The turbulent month of February 2025 ended with international news relevant to the digital media system and the future of its regulation, its business models, and the role of platforms around the world. South Africawas no exception and both where both Google and Meta faced sanctions for anticompetitive behavior toward the media.

This is one of the main conclusions of the South African Competition Commission’s interim report, resulting from a 16-month investigation into that market. The central problem lies in the role they play as intermediaries between those who produce journalistic content—generally small South African media outlets with a local news agenda—and audiences.

It’s an economic issue and its resolution, according to the Commission, require financial compensation because the functioning of its algorithms—and the priority Facebook gives to other topics and media outlets, to the detriment of local newspapers—affects the latter’s economic viability.

For the South African Competition Commission, “Google’s algorithm hampers news outlets’ ability to obtain and monetize digital traffic by overrepresenting foreign media outlets for searches and top stories in South Africa, while underrepresenting local language and community media,” according to Silicon, a UK-based outlet specializing in the topic.

In addition to being an economic issue, it is also a private intervention impacting the visibility and circulation of content published on their social networks, giving the platforms control over what reaches—and what doesn’t—audiences.

In its report, the Commission claims that Google must “compensate” South African media outlets between 300 and 500 million rand annually—approximately between $16 and $27 million—over a period of three to five years. A Reuters report highlighted the Commission´s understanding is that, “inequality has materially contributed to the erosion of the media in South Africa over the past 14 years and will continue to do so unless remedied.”

The Commission warned that if the companies targeted by its conclusions do not cooperate with the proposed solutions, it may request a 5 to 10% tax on the tech giants to compensate the local media industry. The watchdog will publish a final report by the end of 2025, but before then, stakeholders will have time to present evidence to support their position.

The central debate, the background, and a path from Johannesburg to Pretoria

In the case of South Africa, Google’s algorithm hinders the ability of national news sites to monetize digital traffic by giving prominence to foreign media outlets in searches and the presentation of major news stories.

These strategies have previously led to conflicts between platforms in various countries, as the platforms negatively affect (often discriminate against) the visibility and circulation of national media outlets’ news productions. The most significant cases are Australia and Canada.

Beyond this (new) specific case, OBSERVACOM, with its special focus on Latin America, the viability of journalistic activity is a fundamental pillar of democratic systems and, also, of different economic systems: the dissemination of truthful, clear information produced professionally, autonomously, and independently of other interests is vital for informed decision-making.

However, this cannot function adequately with the platforms’ control over the circulation of journalistic productions and online public debate. And what we understand and propose—together with UNESCO, for example—is that the platforms should contribute something.

At this point in the debate, it seems key to critically consider the role of large platforms in shaping mechanisms that contribute to the sustainability of journalistic activity and the media associated with it. This may be in the form of compensation for the use of content that later allows them to profit, or as compensation for their place and impact on the circulation of information (and the amplification of disinformation) and the viability of journalistic activity due to the abuse of their dominant position.

The relationship between digital platforms and national news media is debated by media companies and organizations that comprise them, from many perspectives. This is also the case with groups of journalists and media workers, as well as civil society organizations, such as OBSERVACOM.

Within this framework, it is possible to retrace an imaginary journey through South African cities, from Johannesburg (the country’s capital, where the legal proceedings analyzed here are taking place) to Pretoria, the city where the GIBS Media Leadership Think Tanks conference at the University of Pretoria was held in 2023.

This conference culminated with the signatories adopting the Decalogue “Big Tech and Journalism: Principles for Fair Compensation,” signed by journalists, news editors, media organizations, academics, activists, lawyers, and economists from 24 countries, including Camille Grenier, director of operations of the Forum on Information and Democracy, the Brazilian Digital Journalism Association (Ajor), and the Argentine Journalism Forum (FOPEA).

The proposal states that “the Principles are intended to be universal and serve as a framework for any country seeking to address media sustainability through competitive or regulatory approaches.” Of this decalogue, point 4 stands out, on sustainability, which speaks of “guaranteeing fair compensation for the use of their intellectual property and content (…)” and point 5, which, under the concept of “justice,” proposes that “mechanisms must ensure that the conditions of collaboration between platforms and publishers are consistent across the market and do not allow individual platforms or publishers to enter into preferential agreements.”

I find two relevant problems here. The first focuses on the notion of “intellectual property” applied to information, which is a central public good for pluralism and diversity. The second may seem merely semantic, but it is material: defining the remuneration that platforms should pay as “collaboration” ignores the different aspects of the context, those highlighted by the South African Competition Report regarding the anti-competitive behavior of those who should “collaborate.”

In any case, the title of the proposal speaks of “compensation” for the use that platforms (Facebook) make of something (news stories) whose owners are others (the media). As long as this logic operates within the framework imposed by the platforms—their algorithms and the ability for them to decide what circulates and is visible and what is not—the chances for small, local, and/or community media outlets are slim to none, as they lack traffic. And that’s the Commission’s point. It will be crucial to see how this mess is resolved to determine whether we are witnessing another version of the butterfly effect.

Relacionado