You may be aware that I have been trying to interest the current government in the plight of businesses that are being victimised by the algorithms—and other devices—used by the big social media platforms to restrict what their users see.
I wrote to the Department of Science, Innovation, and Technology and its Secretary of State, Peter Kyle, back in July and got no reply, so then I wrote to Keir Starmer himself in November. Late last week I received a reply by snail mail (dated mid-December). Christmas post?) which may move matters along. I want to tell you what it said and offer you an opportunity to get involved because I think the more of us put our stories out there, the more likely we are to be taken seriously.
My letters referred to the King’s Speech at the State Opening of Parliament, when he said, “My government will prioritise wealth creation for all.” I made the point that there is a particularly pernicious form of wealth suppression that has plagued our businesses and others like them since at least 2020.
I went on to explain that I was referring to the suppression of businesses that rely on publicity on the internet and in particular via social media platforms.
I pointed out that, more recently, there has been the so-called ‘Exodus from X’, in which millions of people are leaving that platform because its algorithms have been retuned since Elon Musk took it over, in order to reflect his politics.
Musk’s appointment to a position in Donald Trump’s government was the last straw for many users, who have left what has become – increasingly – a right-wing echo chamber, for other platforms such as BlueSky.
I said this is bad in business terms; Musk’s tweaking of the algorithms deliberately put firms such as commentary websites at a disadvantage if their political positions were not aligned with his—he was trying to put us out of business.
I explained that I run a political news and commentary website called Vox Political. I write and publish up to six articles per day and publicise these with links on platforms including Facebook, X, and others including BlueSky, MeWe… There are several.
I made a point of stating that the most popular posts on the VP Facebook page nowadays are always those checking whether people are seeing what I’m putting up, and the most common response is that these queries are the first things people have seen from me in a long time—often months.
I said the reason, as far as I and other social media-reliant website owners can tell, is that these platforms use algorithms—processes or sets of rules that are followed when handling posts by users—to push links to sites like mine down users’ newsfeeds (the lists of posts they see from other users, pages, or groups they have indicated they want to see) to prevent them from being seen.
I said we do not know why social media platforms do this. Perhaps they want us to spend money advertising our output (although, if so, they are charging far too much; a recent message from Facebook suggested that I should spend £42 to get 1,000 extra views, which is clearly an admission that views are being restricted, but 1,000 extra readers would not generate the extra revenue for my site that would cover the cost of paying for them, so it would be commercial insanity for me to spend that money).
Before these algorithms were introduced, my presence on Facebook (for example) grew rapidly, my posts were seen by tens of thousands of people at a time, and my website’s popularity approached a million hits per month. This meant I was able to earn a relatively comfortable living—in 2020, VP had nearly six million hits—and then the readership suddenly disappeared. Not all at once, but very quickly my presence on (for example) Facebook stagnated until now my posts are often seen by fewer than 100 people and my website struggles to get 1,000 hits a day. That’s about 1/16 of what the site was getting at its peak.
That hasn’t happened because public tastes have changed; it is a result of direct interference. Right?
My site is funded by advertising. The loss of readers means the loss of revenue, not only because there are fewer people to click on the ads but because fewer advertisers want to appear on a site with a lower circulation, so the cost of placing an ad with me has plummeted. My income from the site has fallen so that where I was once able to make a comfortable living, I raised less than £1,000 last year, making the site untenable as a business.
And, as I said, my site is just one of many. There are thousands—maybe tens or even hundreds of thousands—of small businesspeople like me and I have no doubt that many, most, or all of them have been penalised in the same way—by monopolies that are abusing their power over us (in my opinion).
I continued: “When you think of the damage to the UK economy that this could represent, the consequences may be staggering.”
So I appealed to the government: please launch an investigation into what is happening to businesses like mine, why it is happening, and how we can be freed to return to profit again. I also asked, ‘Will the government then take the appropriate steps to free the online economy to make the potentially huge contribution to the UK’s prosperity that it should?’
I said I was willing to provide further information and assistance if needed, meet any government representative to discuss the matter, if asked, and that I was sure my colleagues who suffer similar suppression will also be happy to do the same.
Here’s the reply:
“As you highlighted in your email, there are a small number of digital companies, like X and Meta, which have a significant influence on our economy and society. The government takes the matter seriously. This is why the government has prioritised the introduction of a new digital markets regime as part of the Digital Markets, Competition, and Consumers (DMCC) Act 2024 to promote dynamic and competitive digital markets. The DMCC Act, which had cross-party support, introduces faster, more effective tools to address the unique competition challenges in the digital economy.
“The digital markets regime will be in force from 1 January 2025 and will play a significant role in holding a range of digital companies accountable. This government is committed to supporting a dynamic and innovative digital economy that drives economic growth and delivers better outcomes for businesses and consumers.
“If you have concerns about a specific breach of competition legislation, you may wish to report concerns directly to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). The CMA is responsible for investigating individual and market-wide competition issues. Details about how to submit a notification, along with general guidance, are available online.”
An accompanying letter—apparently one that was sent to me in September after the Kyle letter, but which I did not receive – states:
“The Digital Markets, Competition, and Consumers (DMCC) Act… gives the CMA new, faster, and more effective tools to help rebalance the relationship between major platforms and those who rely on them, including content providers.
“For example, conduct requirements could be used to give businessness transparency over the algorithms that drive traffic and revenue, while pro-competition interventions could be introduced to address the causes of market power. This could include requiring designated companies to allow third parties greater access to key data, which can otherwise lead to imbalances in bargaining power.
“The CMA will also have the ability to impose penalties to ensure compliance with these new rules, which can include fines of up to 10% of global turnover.
“The CMA is independent of government, and any interventions, which may include remedies under the digital markets regime, will be based on evidence and subject to consultation. The government and the CMA are working closely to get the regime up and running as soon as possible.”
It occurs to me that this could be an enormous opportunity.
The government—both Tory and Labour—made a big fuss about the Online Safety Act, but it hadn’t even come into force, despite being passed in 2023, when events put government policy flat on its legislative derriere. I refer, of course, to the Stockport stabbings and the way lies about the suspect (a UK citizen of Christian descent who was painted as a Muslim immigrant) were used to provoke riots in towns and cities across the country. Those responsible spread their lies on the big social media platforms where their message was disseminated freely; those of us who tried to make the facts known were suppressed. Would the Act have changed what happened? I have a doubt.
The opportunity is to demonstrate why we believe the social media platforms are victimising us. The more of us take part, the more weight our submission will have.
I would not want to go into something like this ill-prepared; I think there may be only one chance to get it right, so I would want to do everything I can to achieve that end.
So my question is: do you want to join me in making a submission to the Competition and Markets Authority? And shall we—and anyone else who wants to join in—have a discussion about it for a while and then work out what we want to say and how we want to make the tools mentioned in the government letters work for us?
Together we are stronger, I think, so I would urge you to consider this matter seriously.
With regards,
Mike Sivier
Vox Political.
