"We are afraid of it Google. We are forced to cooperate with her in order to survive, but we are afraid of her." The sensational confession of Matthias Deppner, CEO of the German publishing group Axel Springer, in an open letter published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, shakes up the debate about the omnipotence of the Internet giant. Not only because the word "fear" is not in the vocabulary of "players" as powerful as Deppner, but because it symbolizes the conflict old and new order of things in the flow of information.
For decades, the Springer group (which publishes Bild, the first newspaper in circulation in Europe, Welt and owns dozens of printed and electronic media), represented in the eyes of some the "evil" as a pillar of the "information system" where publishers remain comparatively robust, informing daily 80% of the audience aged over 14 years through their printed and electronic products. Simply, never before had they faced such a sweeping competition. The giants of the digital era, with Google (and Facebook, Apple, Amazon), do not just dominate the markets: they do not regulate them.
Some people saw Deepfinger's letter, addressed to Google's strong man Eric Schmidt, as a starting point of serious concern, others as a confession of defeat. It is certainly the first time that such a "big fish" of media calls for public protection in order not to be devoured by a "hat" of the digital age. The problem, good or bad, is that he is right.
The "Big Brother"
When Deppner says that Axel Springer is David and Google is Goliath, he is right. When he likens the speed and range of spread of Internet behemoths to that of a virulent virus, he is right. It rightly states that the ability provided by Google to users or content producers who don't approve of her methods to turn their backs on her, is as utopian as telling an opponent of nuclear power to live without electricity. When he accuses Google of "sitting round on the treasure trove of humanity's data like the giant Fafner in Wagnerian operas, he is not far from the truth. There are well-founded fears that all of its investments and future plans (from home technology and driverless cars to floating facilities in international territorial waters) foreshadow a dystopian future where Google as a superstate oversees every aspect of life. us. And it makes sense to claim that the argument "he who has nothing to hide, nothing to fear" refers to the Stasi. "Only dictatorships would rather have transparent citizens than a free press," he says.
Unmanaged size
Deppner is not technophobic - everything else. 62% of his group's revenue already comes from digital media and he is determined to increase the percentage. But he is also an avid manager, who knows how to read numbers. Google has a 92% share of search engines in Germany - even higher than the US. Google sends 10 billion visitors a month to content creators around the world. When Google decided to change its algorithm, traffic to the Axel Springer affiliate website - coincidentally competing with its own services - fell by 70%. With a market capitalization of € 350 billion, revenue of € 60 billion and profits of € 14 billion in 2013, Google is 20 times more profitable than Axel Springer. "Google is for the Internet what the German Post Office or Deutsche Telekom is in the age of state monopolies. "To be precise, it is a global digital monopoly."
The problem, according to Deppner, is that Google invokes the freedom of the Internet and the interest of the user, who of course has the technological infrastructure to "file" - from which websites he visits to what he writes in his professional or personal emails. The problem is that it manipulates search results, displaying first web pages of its own interests, whether they are better or more popular. The problem is the arrogance and cynicism with which Google, through Eric Schmidt, declares: "We know where you are, we know where you went, we can know more or less what you think." The main problem is that the Commission's Competition Commission is pouring water on its wine and is oriented - according to him - to a compromise with Google, which will only provide its competitors with a privileged advertising space on its results pages: if they want to appear, they must to pay.
"We are obliged to cooperate with you, but we are not talking on equal terms," Deputy confesses, finding that without legal arsenals the strength and size of Google are unmanageable.
This was clearly admitted by committee members of the British Parliament in report of last September on the topic of "Creative economy". They directly complained that Google has an open channel with Downing Street, that it takes "gifts" from British intellectual property and gets rich from advertising, that it still directs users to pages that violate copyright law... "The problem is that the Google has become so big and so powerful not only for the British government, but also for the American government," they conclude. "What can we, as legislators, do to help stranded users?"
The answer is not simple, since users do not realize the problem: Google services are so easy, convenient, helpful, that the general public consumes them indifferently (or ignoring) that the price is the potential "envelope" of. The most serious legislative effort to date has focused on protecting publishers from plagiarism: last year, at about this time, the previous Merkel government passed the so-called "Google tax" - a much-praised bill banning free reproduction of journalistic content in which Axel Springer had taken the lead. Only at the last minute the bill was stumbled, exempting from the obligation to pay royalties the "short excerpts" of articles, without clearly defining how "short" it should be (one word; one title; half a paragraph?) And remained practically inactive, because no publisher can be deprived of the traffic that Google provides. In short, no European law obliges it to pay for the content of third parties that it reproduces and distributes.
"Why are you fighting us?"
One of the most well-known American analysts of the digital economy, Jeff Jarvis, who has been invited to speak at conferences of both the Springer group and Google, faced the "attack" of German publishers with irony: They are looking for someone to blame for all their problems, they pursue state protectionism and undermine Germany's efforts to establish itself as a country of innovation, they remind children in the kindergarten yard who think they are being unfair in the game and run behind the teacher's skirt – some of what he wrote.
Google, however, denies playing the role of "bully" in the school yard. In his original article on FAZ, which triggered Deepfinger's letter, Eric Schmidt raises the question "Why are you fighting us?" And essentially identifies his company with the "Internet magic that gives everyone instant access to information until recently scarcely ". Interactive and landed, albeit from a power position, invokes numbers (the Internet has contributed by 25% to the increase in German exports in the last decade, only Google products have helped to establish the space 2007-2011 about 28.000 small German businesses, contributing 8 billion in GDP and 100.000 jobs, only 2013 Google has attributed to the affiliate publishers advertising revenue of 7 billion and goes on). "Collaborate with us and you will win, we are ready to respond to your concerns," he says. Notwithstanding, of course, the phrase "if you can, do it anyway".
The French "resistance"
Ο αναπληρωτής καθηγητής Πολιτικής Οικονομίας των ΜΜΕ στο Πανεπιστήμιο της Τουλούζης Nίκος Σμυρναίος ερευνά το θέμα επί μία δεκαετία. Η λέξη-κλειδί που επαναλαμβάνει στην τηλεφωνική μας συνομιλία είναι η απορρύθμιση. «Εταιρείες όπως η Google έχουν δημιουργήσει ένα ολιγοπωλιακό πλέγμα, οικονομικό και τεχνολογικό, έχοντας εγκατασταθεί στο πιο στρατηγικό σημείο: μεταξύ των παρόχων περιεχομένου και του κοινού. Για να έχουμε πρόσβαση στην information, we are forced to use their services. "The balance of power is in their favor and against the traditional 'players' in industries such as mass media," he says. “The question is how strategic intermediaries operate in a completely deregulated environment where there is no non-US law to obey. They impose their rules on how information will be shaped to circulate through their channels, while at the same time retaining a very large portion of the surplus value created by content producers, endangering their very existence. The glaring example is tax avoidance techniques – in France Google paid 2% of its turnover”. Last March, tax authorities raided Google's offices in France to leave a hefty "bill" of one billion euros in unpaid taxes. "It will be interesting to see how this case will develop", points out Mr. Smyrnaios.
Ten years ago, he recalls, he referred to the issue and was viewed as an alien. According to him, it is positive that the debate has begun - he finds out from the interest of his students when the omnipotence of the Internet giants is affected, a phenomenon that has no historical precedent.
"Their role, their oligopolistic character, their rights and obligations must be considered from the beginning. The issue is not just about the media. So far we do not know how much the Commission has the political will to impose barriers. "Alternative solutions always exist - what does not exist is education and awareness of the issue." In France, at least, the debate has matured. As early as 2002, when Google launched its news service, publishers saw the threat and began pushing - sometimes to streamline search results (succeeded), sometimes for a law to secure their revenue (failed).
In 2013, at a pivotal point development, reached a settlement with Google, which agreed to pay the sum of 60 million euros over three years, to a special fund "to strengthen the online presence of French publishers" (a similar agreement, for a much smaller amount, had also been made in Belgium). And in this case, the settlement was made on Google's terms – in the form of a donation rather than a legal obligation, so as not to create a lawsuit. "Perhaps even the Germans are now pushing in this direction," speculates Mr. Smyrnaios.
