Media intermediaries
Media intermediaries act as a bridge between those who produce content and those who consume it.
They collect information and journalistic content, organize it, and make it available in this way. To do so, they use algorithmic mechanisms of their own choosing, which evaluate content and information for relevance based on collected user data. Among other things, this determines which information users can find easily and frequently. Social networks (e.g., Facebook), so-called video-sharing services (e.g., YouTube), and search engines (e.g., Google) are therefore considered media intermediaries.
Media intermediaries are used daily by countless users as a source of information—often without them even realizing it—and therefore have a major influence on the formation of public opinion. Most people rely primarily on a few large intermediaries, which, due to their central mediating role, could potentially influence access to information.
Each of us uses intermediaries every day, and thus social networks, search engines, and video portals play an ever-growing role in shaping our opinions.
Calls for the Protection of Media Diversity
Media intermediaries such as X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Google play a decisive role in shaping public opinion and pose risks to media diversity. Through their aggregation, selection, and presentation of media content, they exert significant influence on the processes of opinion formation and decision-making. Additionally, there is a risk that they could undermine diversity.
We are committed to safeguarding diversity of opinion, content, and providers in digital spaces as well. To meet this goal, we have formulated specific demands directed at lawmakers, platforms, and regulatory authorities in order to initiate a discussion and hold media intermediaries accountable.
NEW LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
The State Media Treaty regulates media intermediaries for the first time. This regulation is primarily intended to ensure diversity. Under the “transparency requirement,” media intermediaries must, among other things, explain their key criteria for collecting, selecting, and presenting content, as well as how they weight these criteria when sorting information and content. In addition, media intermediaries may not treat individual journalistic content less favorably than other content by using additional, undisclosed criteria for collection, selection, or presentation. Nor may the underlying criteria themselves discriminate against any content (“prohibition on discrimination”).
In Germany, the state media authorities are responsible for monitoring compliance with these requirements. We ensure that the formation of opinions can take place freely and independently, even when using media intermediaries. This is because users must be able to access a wide range of services and channels, as well as a diversity of opinions and positions. Safeguarding diversity—including online—is thus one of the core tasks of the media authorities.