Markets for widgets generally work pretty well. The consumer pays the distributor and the distributor pays the producer. When consumer preferences change, the supply chain produces more or less widgets with higher or lower quality.
But markets for information are leaky. Consumers can get information without paying the distributor. Many consumers can't tell the difference between high-quality information and information that's deceptive or manipulative. Most consumers aren't willing to pay for high-quality information.
So markets for information don't work as well as markets for widgets. Producers don't get paid, the supply of quality information is diminished, and we are all poorer as a result.
Now the producers want to form a cartel to negotiate with distributors as a bloc. But this only increases the cost of content to the distributor.
A cartel doesn't fix the root cause. Consumers still don't want to pay. Increasing the cost without changing consumers' willingness to pay will only make a bad situation even worse.
At a higher cost, even less high-quality information will be demanded, so even less will be produced. Producers will shrink further into irrelevance, low-quality information will dominate, and we'll all be even poorer.
When consumers aren't willing to pay, markets don't work well.
It's unlikely consumers will suddenly become willing to pay for information they can get for free, so feeds will fill up with even more low-quality, deceptive and manipulative information.
Maybe markets just aren't the right mechanism. Since the public needs high-quality information now more than ever, maybe we need to examine non-market methods to produce it.
But markets for information are leaky. Consumers can get information without paying the distributor. Many consumers can't tell the difference between high-quality information and information that's deceptive or manipulative. Most consumers aren't willing to pay for high-quality information.
So markets for information don't work as well as markets for widgets. Producers don't get paid, the supply of quality information is diminished, and we are all poorer as a result.
Now the producers want to form a cartel to negotiate with distributors as a bloc. But this only increases the cost of content to the distributor.
A cartel doesn't fix the root cause. Consumers still don't want to pay. Increasing the cost without changing consumers' willingness to pay will only make a bad situation even worse.
At a higher cost, even less high-quality information will be demanded, so even less will be produced. Producers will shrink further into irrelevance, low-quality information will dominate, and we'll all be even poorer.
When consumers aren't willing to pay, markets don't work well.
It's unlikely consumers will suddenly become willing to pay for information they can get for free, so feeds will fill up with even more low-quality, deceptive and manipulative information.
Maybe markets just aren't the right mechanism. Since the public needs high-quality information now more than ever, maybe we need to examine non-market methods to produce it.