Thread · 5 tweets · 3 Oct 2022

To perhaps clarify my thoughts a little bit (and they're not necessarily fully clear, like you I'm still thinking my way through this): the very short version would be "why negotiate over money when we should be negotiating over infrastructure?"

I'm extremely sympathetic to the fact that these funds are needed ten years ago and that we literally have democracy to save. I can see the case for a "pay now, fix later" approach. But I worry that this turns into a "pay forever, fix never" situation.

The way in which search works today gives massive gatekeeping power to the platforms, essentially trumping an EIC in determining what is most worthy of attention. I think that's very unhealthy. But once the money flows, who will want to fix the system?

Reforming the infrastructure (with collective bargaining) does not benefit: vultures, publishers with bad or no tech strategy (ie. most), or those too small to have the specialised staff that can work on those problems. These will all resist change if they get money.

We can see that with privacy. It's readily obvious that giving away data to third parties is detrimental to publisher businesses, but the alternative requires innovation at the edges. That *terrifies* some players.