Merkel may not say it directly, but a very serious risk is if Google, Facebook or Twitter's leadership decides to try to influence public affairs by hiding some things and showing others.
You may think the current leadership of those organizations wouldn't do that, but they are human beings.
* What if a powerful business partner, such as the Chinese or Indian governments or a large company, wants search results 'made more fair and balanced' in return for their business? Hollywood studios, Bloomberg, and (IIRC) Fox already have censored themselves for the Chinese government. Advertisers' influence on the news is well-known.
* What if one of the big platform's leaders feels very strongly about an issue, feels attacked, or thinks they are doing the right thing? IIRC, Jimmy Wales used his power to alter articles in Wikipedia to suit his preferences and to cover up the changes. What if a highly critical, maybe even partly false story about Zuckerberg or his wife goes viral? Will it get treated the same as other such stories?
* What happens when a big platform's leadership changes? Maybe the new people will be highly politicized. Maybe the Koch brothers or Fox/Murdoch (or Peter Thiel?) or another politicized investor will buy in - precisely to gain that influence, as many have done before.
These platforms have the responsibilities of journalists, without the institutional or professional norms and training, and with far more power than any news organization ever had. Rush Limbaugh, Fox, CNN or the NY Times each (or even together) have nothing compared to the breadth and depth of influence of Google, Facebook, and Twitter, in the U.S. and around the world.
You may think the current leadership of those organizations wouldn't do that, but they are human beings.
* What if a powerful business partner, such as the Chinese or Indian governments or a large company, wants search results 'made more fair and balanced' in return for their business? Hollywood studios, Bloomberg, and (IIRC) Fox already have censored themselves for the Chinese government. Advertisers' influence on the news is well-known.
* What if one of the big platform's leaders feels very strongly about an issue, feels attacked, or thinks they are doing the right thing? IIRC, Jimmy Wales used his power to alter articles in Wikipedia to suit his preferences and to cover up the changes. What if a highly critical, maybe even partly false story about Zuckerberg or his wife goes viral? Will it get treated the same as other such stories?
* What happens when a big platform's leadership changes? Maybe the new people will be highly politicized. Maybe the Koch brothers or Fox/Murdoch (or Peter Thiel?) or another politicized investor will buy in - precisely to gain that influence, as many have done before.
These platforms have the responsibilities of journalists, without the institutional or professional norms and training, and with far more power than any news organization ever had. Rush Limbaugh, Fox, CNN or the NY Times each (or even together) have nothing compared to the breadth and depth of influence of Google, Facebook, and Twitter, in the U.S. and around the world.