Democratizing Media
Alright, one thing first: When politicians speak about "democratizing media" they usually mean something else then what scientist say, when they use those words. Politicians mostly mean something along the lines of "media should say what I want instead being controlled by some coorporation, because like I am elected, right?" Meanwhile scientist mean something else.
You see, before the internet became easily accessible for most people, the only way to access media was through certain outlets. TV stations, the cinema, some publishers and some record lables.
Yes, sure. Technically self-publishing was a thing even back then, but without the ease of the internet... How were you to market your own book or comic? And self-made music usually just circulated on copied and copied again casette tapes.
Usually, if you wanted to create media that actually people would see, you had to go through a big company. And those companies could very much decide who got to make movies and tv, who got to publish music or books or comics. Not only where those decisions controlled by capitalist interest, but also by nepotism and cultural biases, given that a lot of the people making those decisions where (and still are to these days) white, cis, abled men.
But when the internet came around things changed. Because suddenly everyone had a way easier time in getting their stuff out there. Pretty early on there were websites where people could just publish their stories and comics online. Either free and hosted by some other website or paid on their own site. Which was pretty revolutionary, especially as suddenly ideas that had been ignored could reach a new audience.
Voices, that by news media and such had been ignored so far - voices of women and marginalized folks - could suddenly broadcast over all sorts of channels.
And yes, you could also just publish your music and what not online, could also do your own research and offer it to the world and could actually get heard.
Now, we all know that this came with ups and downs. Because while finally marginalized people were heard like this, it also gave a bigger platform to some fringe conspiracy groups and the like. But at least there was a chance to get your stuff out there.
Social media websites and the like played a big role in this. Especially Youtube, of course, but other sites, too........ which of course brings me to the problem. Or rather to the question: "Is media democratized right now?"
Because it isn't, of course.
Right now we have these chokepoints, where you kinda are forced to push whatever you create through a channel. Sure, you can upload your videos on your own server, but probably nobody will see them. They need to be on youtube. Just like your music now needs to be on spotify and itunes. And if you self-publish a book, it kinda needs to be available on amazon or you won't sell shit. And if you have your own little blog and do not promote it on social media (or have it not integrated on a blogging platform such as tumblr) it will not be seen.
And this brings two issues with it (well, actually three). For one, as private companies those sides are able to censor you in any way they want to. They decide you cannot say the word "queer" anymore? Welp, no more talking about queer issues for you. And because they are a private company nobody can do much against it. Like with the tumblr purge. No more "female presenting nipples" for you.
The next issue is closely related: The companies in question want to make money. This they do mostly through advertisement and maybe subscriptions. Hence their goal is to keep you interacting with their website for a long while. And thus they have algorithms that decide what content you see - and hence if the content decides that something you do is not worth it or will get the wrong kind of attention... Well, nobody will get it shown. On a lot of social media we see, for example, that the negative content gets shown to more people. So writing about positive stuff does often not get you seen. (Which is why algorithms are bad. Don't fucking build your social media websites around a fucking algorithm.)
And lastly: A lot of media additionally to all of that also uses a system of partly manual currated. This is true for Netflix, who obviously want to make sure that the front page does show the stuff they either paid a lot of money for or that they produced themselves. Like, there is an infinity of great indie movies on Netflix, but if you do not know it is there, you will not see it. Same goes for a lot of Indie Games on Steam, that just go unnoticed, because they do not appear anywhere near the front page and just happen to go overlooked by folks. And in the end the big studios obviously have the money to get their games on the front page. Same with books on amazon, where just the difference in marketing budget makes sure, that certain books will end up front.
So, why am I telling all of that?
Because we still do have the tool. We can make a free, democratic internet like that. Where we do not have censorship (please note: banning people for saying hateful shit is actually not censorship, so yeah, ban them nazis). Where we do not have fucking algorithms. And where just everything has the same chance of getting seen.
Like, does not mean that there cannot be any currated lists. Like, those currator pages on steam? Those are fucking great. Lists where everyone just can make those and you can subscribe to their lists. That is amazing. But... you know. Not for the baseline experience, but for what everyone wants their experience to be like.
Just... a thing that bothers me. Based on the stuff I spoke about yesterday.
