Imagine a future in which the owner of X becomes the president of the United States of America. This is the dystopian narrative Seipp describes in the introduction of her thesis. Today, this has almost become a reality as Elon Musk is appointed as one of the people in Trump’s new cabinet. ‘This is what happens when people gain a lot of power simply by being rich. It shows severe democratic flaws, and it should be a wake-up call,’ Seipp says.

Why did you want to dive into power concentrations in the media?

‘There is a shift in the media: power has moved from traditional media to digital platforms and big tech companies. It’s happening because of technological advances and new ways of producing, distributing and consuming news. However, media concentration law still focuses on traditional media. These laws put limits in place about how much power they can have. There are, for example, limits on how many news channels a company or individual can own. In the Netherlands, these laws aren’t very strict to begin with, which allows publisher DPG media, for example, to own so many newspapers. But companies like Google and Microsoft hold even bigger monopolies in the market. They are not restricted the same way as traditional news media.’

What does the lack of regulation lead to?

‘It allows platform companies like Meta to follow their private commercial interests instead of serving the public interest. If news and opinions are subjected to the commercial goals of a company, this potentially gives a lot of room for manipulation and political motivations. Elon Musk now wants to buy a news channel. You can clearly see that political power comes into play when economic and media power merge. If you don’t restrict these companies, there is a risk of sustainable journalism and pluralism eroding, which would seriously threaten democracy.’

Don’t we still have independent journalism?

‘Journalism has a hard time competing with these platforms. Most newsrooms are dependent on platforms in some way. They are trying to draw people in through social media or even receive funds from big tech companies, for instance for innovation programmes. It’s difficult to break free from that dependence. Newsrooms are also relying on tech companies to gain insight into their audience. They’re buying off-the-shelf products that prevent news organisations from implementing their journalistic values. On top of that, a lot of news organsiations and other public institutions store their data on the Amazon Cloud. That’s an immense power they’re giving this company. We’ve already seen this play out in politics before. Meta blocked access to Facebook after Australia passed a new law that would force platforms to pay news organisations. The government was then almost forced into renegotiating the details of the law. The message is basically: if big tech companies don’t like the legislation, they could leave. The question is, would that be so bad? If we don’t have any alternatives, then yes.’

Then, how do stricter laws solve the problem?

‘Over the last few years, a lot has already happened. For example, the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, and the European Media Freedom Act came into force. They all try to tackle the problem one way or the other. There is an awareness and willingness to address the power of big tech companies. But it’s still hard as big tech has immense lobbying power. On top of this, we would need better alternatives for the services of big tech companies.’

In an ideal world, does Europe have its own search engine and social media platforms?

‘Ideally, Europe would have its own public infrastructures and social media platforms, and be able to compete in the development of technology and AI. This is difficult though, because few large, big tech companies have such strong data and computing power that smaller start-ups can hardly compete. But it doesn’t mean that we are all powerless. Media organisations and other institutions do have a choice and can exercise some form of counterpower. You can see that is happening now with people moving away from X and starting fresh at Bluesky. It’s important that individuals and institutions make that move to create a new balance. Besides news companies like the Guardian, universities and public institutions could also make that move and decide which platforms they want to use, and then perhaps move to alternatives like Bluesky.’

Do we still need stricter laws if there are better alternatives?

‘We do need rules to restrict the power that big tech companies have over opinion formation and the media. This is very important because those with power over opinion and news essentially have political power. The problem is that passing new laws is a slow process. That’s why laws alone cannot solve this problem.’  

What else should be done?

‘We need more regulation for big tech companies, more alternatives, and we need to enforce the laws we already have. It’s also important to make sure journalism can fulfil its function to provide people with quality information but also to scrutinize power. It’s quite worrisome to think that a few people in Silicon Valley have such power over our information environments, and consequently our democracy. Each of us should be wary of this and really think about what you can do yourself. I am not on X, for example, and I would not buy a Tesla, but I do try and support independent journalism with paying for subscriptions, for example. There is also power in the choices people make.’