Don’t expect breaking up Google and Facebook to solve our information woes

“More options are great in theory, but new platforms could also provide a haven for misinformation and hate speech and further prevent us from engaging with opinions that challenge our existing beliefs.”

The overwhelming success of Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma brought increased public attention to the role platforms play in our access to information and exposure to extremist ideas and rhetoric. For years, academics have noted the perils of a platform-driven world (see here, here, and here, just to name a few). Their work sheds light on the exploitive nature of corporations whose design is rooted in keeping people engaged for as long as possible to maximize the data they can sell about us, as well as the pervasive, systemic racism coded into their design.

It looks like 2021 will be the year U.S. lawmakers and regulators finally do something about it. This year, executives from Facebook, Google, and Twitter repeatedly testified before the House of Representatives in response to allegations of antitrust violations, spreading misinformation, and censorship. The year wrapped up with 48 state attorneys general joining forces with the federal government to try and force Facebook to divest its ownership of Instagram and WhatsApp. The outcomes from the lawsuit are still up in the air, but deregulation could pave the way for more social networks and search engines.

While the pursuit of breaking up these monoliths is a step in the right direction, more options will not necessarily solve the problem of misinformation, privacy violations, and the amplification of extremism. These problems will persist on niche platforms and won’t change how relevance is manipulated to spread propaganda. Regulation does little to change our role in how we interact with these platforms to find news and information that we rely on to make important decisions.

Breaking up Facebook would mean a 2021 with more niche platforms tailored around audience needs. More options are great in theory, but new platforms could also provide a haven for misinformation and hate speech and further prevent us from engaging with opinions that challenge our existing beliefs. If anything, more choices will likely increase political polarization. This is already happening on spaces like Parler or Rumble, who saw an uptick in users after platforms like Facebook and YouTube began labeling and removing misinformation pertaining to the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

In the case of Google, a breakup wouldn’t necessarily change how people seek out news and information, nor adequately combat the media manipulation efforts currently at play. My work has shown how conservative content creators use search engine optimization to effectively ensure information confirming conservative beliefs dominate the top returns. These sophisticated digital marketing techniques are about exploiting data voids, not Google’s monopoly on search. The tactics of keyword curation and strategic signaling are not bound to any one search engine; digital impact is contingent on a network’s resources and skill sets.

Much like tailoring social networks around user identity, producers’ ability to manipulate search is about understanding the concerns of one’s audience. Over the last year, I’ve spent a great deal of time thinking about how the keywords we start with shape the kinds of returns we receive. Searching for “illegal aliens” vs. “undocumented workers” produces dramatically different results.

A Google search for the phrase “illegal aliens” returns content from conservative thinktanks like the Heritage Foundation, a press release from the Trump White House indicating that illegal immigrants murder U.S. citizens, links to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and news from conservative networks like Fox News. “Undocumented immigrants” returns news coverage about how to protect exploited immigrants, news from The New York Times about Trump’s plan to exclude undocumented immigrants in the Census count, and websites that outline immigration labor laws.

These bifurcated results aren’t contingent on Google personalizing the internet experience (although customization is a big part of why we mostly see news that we agree with). Bing and DuckDuckGo return similar, ideologically siloed, information. DuckDuckGo may be better at protecting users’ privacy, but it is still designed to best match a query based on relevance.

Efforts at thwarting misinformation often focus on the creator of the content. Tools like “Spot the Troll” and information literacy campaigns designed to evaluate the credibility of a source or the sender are important steps in helping users identify false information, but we need more resources that help users construct good questions and find resources to begin with.

Indeed, the power vested in these corporations comes, in part, from our overreliance on them. Some of this power differential can be solved through antitrust regulation; we can’t help but depend on Google when they crush competition through acquisition (e.g., buying YouTube or Waze). But the power of Twitter, Facebook, and Google also comes from the trust we place in them and the continued belief that they are neutral arbitrators of truth.

My hope in 2021 is that we will stop thinking of these spaces as the new “public square.” As Safiya Noble has routinely noted, these corporations are quickly displacing public knowledge infrastructure, filling the gaps legislators have long left behind (high-quality public education, access to libraries, and other traditional sources of knowledge). From the vantage point my data provides, we’re living in parallel internets driven by distinct worldviews. As 2021 commences, I think more of us will try and pop the filter bubbles we’re living in by considering how we too play a role in building the algorithmic walls that surround us.

Francesca Tripodi is an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina’s School of Information and Library Science.

The overwhelming success of Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma brought increased public attention to the role platforms play in our access to information and exposure to extremist ideas and rhetoric. For years, academics have noted the perils of a platform-driven world (see here, here, and here, just to name a few). Their work sheds light on the exploitive nature of corporations whose design is rooted in keeping people engaged for as long as possible to maximize the data they can sell about us, as well as the pervasive, systemic racism coded into their design.

It looks like 2021 will be the year U.S. lawmakers and regulators finally do something about it. This year, executives from Facebook, Google, and Twitter repeatedly testified before the House of Representatives in response to allegations of antitrust violations, spreading misinformation, and censorship. The year wrapped up with 48 state attorneys general joining forces with the federal government to try and force Facebook to divest its ownership of Instagram and WhatsApp. The outcomes from the lawsuit are still up in the air, but deregulation could pave the way for more social networks and search engines.

While the pursuit of breaking up these monoliths is a step in the right direction, more options will not necessarily solve the problem of misinformation, privacy violations, and the amplification of extremism. These problems will persist on niche platforms and won’t change how relevance is manipulated to spread propaganda. Regulation does little to change our role in how we interact with these platforms to find news and information that we rely on to make important decisions.

Breaking up Facebook would mean a 2021 with more niche platforms tailored around audience needs. More options are great in theory, but new platforms could also provide a haven for misinformation and hate speech and further prevent us from engaging with opinions that challenge our existing beliefs. If anything, more choices will likely increase political polarization. This is already happening on spaces like Parler or Rumble, who saw an uptick in users after platforms like Facebook and YouTube began labeling and removing misinformation pertaining to the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

In the case of Google, a breakup wouldn’t necessarily change how people seek out news and information, nor adequately combat the media manipulation efforts currently at play. My work has shown how conservative content creators use search engine optimization to effectively ensure information confirming conservative beliefs dominate the top returns. These sophisticated digital marketing techniques are about exploiting data voids, not Google’s monopoly on search. The tactics of keyword curation and strategic signaling are not bound to any one search engine; digital impact is contingent on a network’s resources and skill sets.

Much like tailoring social networks around user identity, producers’ ability to manipulate search is about understanding the concerns of one’s audience. Over the last year, I’ve spent a great deal of time thinking about how the keywords we start with shape the kinds of returns we receive. Searching for “illegal aliens” vs. “undocumented workers” produces dramatically different results.

A Google search for the phrase “illegal aliens” returns content from conservative thinktanks like the Heritage Foundation, a press release from the Trump White House indicating that illegal immigrants murder U.S. citizens, links to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and news from conservative networks like Fox News. “Undocumented immigrants” returns news coverage about how to protect exploited immigrants, news from The New York Times about Trump’s plan to exclude undocumented immigrants in the Census count, and websites that outline immigration labor laws.

These bifurcated results aren’t contingent on Google personalizing the internet experience (although customization is a big part of why we mostly see news that we agree with). Bing and DuckDuckGo return similar, ideologically siloed, information. DuckDuckGo may be better at protecting users’ privacy, but it is still designed to best match a query based on relevance.

Efforts at thwarting misinformation often focus on the creator of the content. Tools like “Spot the Troll” and information literacy campaigns designed to evaluate the credibility of a source or the sender are important steps in helping users identify false information, but we need more resources that help users construct good questions and find resources to begin with.

Indeed, the power vested in these corporations comes, in part, from our overreliance on them. Some of this power differential can be solved through antitrust regulation; we can’t help but depend on Google when they crush competition through acquisition (e.g., buying YouTube or Waze). But the power of Twitter, Facebook, and Google also comes from the trust we place in them and the continued belief that they are neutral arbitrators of truth.

My hope in 2021 is that we will stop thinking of these spaces as the new “public square.” As Safiya Noble has routinely noted, these corporations are quickly displacing public knowledge infrastructure, filling the gaps legislators have long left behind (high-quality public education, access to libraries, and other traditional sources of knowledge). From the vantage point my data provides, we’re living in parallel internets driven by distinct worldviews. As 2021 commences, I think more of us will try and pop the filter bubbles we’re living in by considering how we too play a role in building the algorithmic walls that surround us.

Francesca Tripodi is an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina’s School of Information and Library Science.

Sarah Marshall   The year audiences need extra cheer

Jennifer Choi   What have we done for you lately?

Janet Haven and Sam Hinds   Is this an AI newsroom?

Cory Bergman   The year after a thousand earthquakes

An Xiao Mina   2020 isn’t a black swan — it’s a yellow canary

Ståle Grut   Network analysis enters the journalism toolbox

Ben Collins   We need to learn how to talk to (and about) accidental conspiracists

Jody Brannon   People won’t renew

Zizi Papacharissi   The year we rebuild the infrastructure of truth

Jonas Kaiser   Toward a wehrhafte journalism

Hossein Derakhshan   Mass personalization of truth

Nikki Usher   Don’t expect an antitrust dividend for the media

Alfred Hermida and Oscar Westlund   The virus ups data journalism’s game

Parker Molloy   The press will risk elevating a Shadow President Trump

Amara Aguilar   Journalism schools emphasize listening

Stefanie Murray and Anthony Advincula   Expect to see more translations and non-English content

Pablo Boczkowski   Audiences have revolted. Will newsrooms adapt?

Tamar Charney   Public radio has a midlife crisis

Chase Davis   The year we look beyond The Story

Jeremy Gilbert   Human-centered journalism

Julia B. Chan and Kim Bui   Millennials are ready to run things

Anthony Nadler   Journalism struggles to find a new model of legitimacy

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen   Stop pretending publishers are a united front

Victor Pickard   The commercial era for local journalism is over

Tonya Mosley   True equity means ownership

Chicas Poderosas   More voices mean better information

Mark Stenberg   The rise of the journalist-influencer

Sonali Prasad   Making disaster journalism that cuts through the noise

Tanya Cordrey   Declining trust forces publishers to claim (or disclaim) values

Catalina Albeanu   Publish less, listen more

Jennifer Brandel   A sneak peak at power mapping, 2073’s top innovation

Zainab Khan   From understanding to feeling

Delia Cai   Subscriptions start working for the middle

Juleyka Lantigua   The download, podcasting’s metric king, gets dethroned

John Ketchum   More journalists of color become newsroom founders

Kristen Muller   Engaged journalism scales

Rachel Schallom   The rise of nonprofit journalism continues

Jer Thorp   Fewer pixels, more cardboard

Jacqué Palmer   The rise of the plain-text email newsletter

Eric Nuzum   Podcasting dodged a bullet in 2020, but 2021 will be harder

Sue Cross   A global consensus around the kind of news we need to save

Natalie Meade   Journalism enters rehab

Christoph Mergerson   Black Americans will demand more from journalism

Loretta Chao   Open up the profession

Rachel Glickhouse   Journalists will be kinder to each other — and to themselves

M. Scott Havens   Traditional pay TV will embrace the disruption

Talmon Joseph Smith   The media rejects deficit hawkery

Ryan Kellett   The bundle gets bundled

Alyssa Zeisler   Holistic medicine for journalism

Francesco Zaffarano   The year we ask the audience what it needs

Michael W. Wagner   Fractured democracy, fractured journalism

Linda Solomon Wood   Canada steps up for journalism

Mike Ananny   Toward better tech journalism

Patrick Butler   Covid-19 reporting has prepared us for cross-border collaboration

José Zamora   Walking the talk on diversity

Mandy Jenkins   You build trust by helping your readers

Francesca Tripodi   Don’t expect breaking up Google and Facebook to solve our information woes

Pia Frey   Building growth through tastemakers and their communities

John Saroff   Covid sparks the growth of independent local news sites

Cory Haik   Be essential

Raney Aronson-Rath   To get past information divides, we need to understand them first

Burt Herman   Journalists build post-Facebook digital communities

Ray Soto   The news gets spatial

Aaron Foley   Diversity gains haven’t shown up in local news

Renée Kaplan   Falling in love with your subscription

John Garrett   A surprisingly good year

Edward Roussel   Tech companies get aggressive in local

Nicholas Jackson   Blogging is back, but better

Charo Henríquez   A new path to leadership

Don Day   Business first, journalism second

David Skok   A pandemic-prompted wave of consolidation

Cindy Royal   J-school grads maintain their optimism and adaptability

Colleen Shalby   The definition of good journalism shifts

Steve Henn   Has independent podcasting peaked?

Rodney Gibbs   Zooming beyond talking heads

J. Siguru Wahutu   Journalists still wrongly think the U.S. is different

Taylor Lorenz   Journalists will learn influencing isn’t easy

Nonny de la Pena   News reaches the third dimension

Shaydanay Urbani and Nancy Watzman   Local collaboration is key to slowing misinformation

John Davidow   Reflect and repent

Marie Shanahan   Journalism schools stop perpetuating the status quo

Samantha Ragland   The year of journalists taking initiative

Mark S. Luckie   Newsrooms and streaming services get cozy

Candis Callison   Calling it a crisis isn’t enough (if it ever was)

Marissa Evans   Putting community trauma into context

Julia Angwin   Show your (computational) work

Gordon Crovitz   Common law will finally apply to the Internet

Astead W. Herndon   The Trump-sized window of the media caring about race closes again

Andrew Ramsammy   Stop being polite and start getting real

Beena Raghavendran   Journalism gets fused with art

Kevin D. Grant   Parachute journalism goes away for good

Laura E. Davis   The focus turns to newsroom leaders for lasting change

Brian Moritz   The year sports journalism changes for good

Tauhid Chappell and Mike Rispoli   Defund the crime beat

Jean Friedman-Rudovsky and Cassie Haynes   A shift from conversation to action

Sam Ford   We’ll find better ways to archive our work

Logan Jaffe   History as a reporting tool

Mike Caulfield   2021’s misinformation will look a lot like 2020’s (and 2019’s, and…)

Hadjar Benmiloud   Get representative, or die trying

Nisha Chittal   The year we stop pivoting

Jim Friedlich   A newspaper renaissance reached by stopping the presses

Nabiha Syed   Newsrooms quit their toxic relationships

Ariane Bernard   Going solo is still only a path for the few

Basile Simon   Graphics, unite

Whitney Phillips   Facts are an insufficient response to falsehoods

Ben Werdmuller   The web blooms again

Ariel Zirulnick   Local newsrooms question their paywalls

Kawandeep Virdee   Goodbye, doomscroll

C.W. Anderson   Journalism changed under Trump — will it keep changing under Biden?

Meredith D. Clark   The year journalism starts paying reparations

Brandy Zadrozny   Misinformation fatigue sets in

Rick Berke   Virtual events are here to stay

Alicia Bell and Simon Galperin   Media reparations now

María Sánchez Díez   Traffic will plummet — and it’ll be ok

Marcus Mabry   News orgs adapt to a post-Trump world (with Trump still in it)

Tshepo Tshabalala   Go niche

Danielle C. Belton   A decimated media rededicates itself to truth

Bill Adair   The future of fact-checking is all about structured data

Gabe Schneider   Another year of empty promises on diversity

Mariano Blejman   It’s time to challenge autocompleted journalism

Annie Rudd   Newsrooms grow less comfortable with the “view from above”

Kate Myers   My son will join every Zoom call in our industry

Robert Hernandez   Data and shame

Heidi Tworek   A year of news mocktails

Sarah Stonbely   Videoconferencing brings more geographic diversity

Jesse Holcomb   Genre erosion in nonprofit journalism

Gonzalo del Peon   Collaborations expand from newsrooms to the business side

Cherian George   Enter the lamb warriors

Megan McCarthy   Readers embrace a low-information diet

Sara M. Watson   Return of the RSS reader

David Chavern   Local video finally gets momentum

Ashton Lattimore   Remote work helps level the playing field in an insular industry

Rishad Patel   From direct-to-consumer to direct-to-believers

Matt Skibinski   Misinformation won’t stop unless we stop it

Masuma Ahuja   We’ll remember how interconnected our world is

Kerri Hoffman   Protecting podcasting’s open ecosystem

Nico Gendron   Ask your readers to help build your products

Anna Nirmala   Local news orgs grasp the urgency of community roots

Tim Carmody   Spotify will make big waves in video

Andrew Donohue   The rise of the democracy beat

Garance Franke-Ruta   Rebundling content, rebuilding connections

Doris Truong   Indigenous issues get long-overdue mainstream coverage

Sumi Aggarwal   News literacy programs aren’t child’s play

Celeste Headlee   The rise of radical newsroom transparency

A.J. Bauer   The year of MAGAcal thinking

Benjamin Toff   Beltway reporting gets normal again, for better and for worse

Ernie Smith   Entrepreneurship on rails

Jessica Clark   News becomes plural

Moreno Cruz Osório   In Brazil, a push for pluralism

Bo Hee Kim   Newsrooms create an intentional and collaborative culture

Imaeyen Ibanga   Journalism gets unmasked

Joni Deutsch   Local arts and music make journalism more joyous

Errin Haines   Let’s normalize women’s leadership

Joanne McNeil   Newsrooms push back against Ivy League cronyism

Matt DeRienzo   Citizen truth brigades steer us back toward reality

Richard Tofel   Less on politics, more on how government works (or doesn’t)

Joshua P. Darr   Legislatures will tackle the local news crisis