It won't be enough to say "this is better for you" - interview with Björn Staschen

He is co-initiator of the "Save Social" initiative, which has set out to preserve the democratic power of social media - Björn Staschen. We spoke to the journalist, author and media scientist about the opportunities and challenges of the Fediverse.

nextMedia: Hi Björn!Are we facing a "both and" or an "either or" decision between the big monopolies and open platforms?

Björn: If we had been very smart 15 or 20 years ago, we probably should and could have made an "either or" decision back then. Today, I think it can only be an "as well as" decision, because we don't yet reach certain target groups on open, alternative platforms. From my point of view, however, it has to be a "both and" strategy because I have to do business in a black box on the big platforms. I don't know whether my business model will still work tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.

nextMedia: What framework conditions and alliances are needed to strengthen open platforms?

Björn: The answer is complicated. In my view, alternative platforms need to be strengthened because we are in a very unequal competitive environment. And this unequal competition results from the massive privileges that the monolithic platforms such as Instagram or TikTok benefit from. One competitive advantage, for example, is the unrestricted non-liability privilege. Facebook is not liable for any comments - whereas the Hamburger Abendblatt, for example, is liable for the content of every published letter to the editor. And so there are a number of privileges from which the large platforms benefit. Privileges that significantly distort competition with the traditional media. If we want to strengthen alternatives, we need to look at these privileges and change them with a sense of proportion: Anyone who distributes algorithmically scattered content with a wide reach in order to earn money should also be liable.

nextMedia: Nevertheless, the reach of the large platforms remains. What needs to change?

Björn: Correct. The privileges have resulted in the massive wealth of the owners and market capitalization, so that David is now fighting Goliath at this level. In my view, we need to strengthen alternatives so that the user interfaces are better, the marketing works better and the infrastructure works better. I think these are the three areas we need to look at.

nextMedia: To what extent does the "marketing" point play a role?

Björn: We need to address the question of whether people and companies should actually earn money on open platforms - and if so, how? What can marketing look like if no personal data is collected? How can it still be interesting for the advertising industry? Or from the creator's perspective: How can I actually earn money for myself and my content? There are still hardly any convincing monetization models.

nextMedia: Are there any activities in this direction?

Björn: There are creators in Fediverse who have been around for a long time and have always focused on their own platform and community. They finance themselves via Steady, for example, a platform that enables subscription models. So that already exists. But that's not enough, and there are no good answers, for example, to the question of whether and how advertising could work.

nextMedia: You had also mentioned the infrastructure. How will this be financed?

Björn: There are already ideas for financing network nodes. There are associations, initiatives, but also medium-sized companies, for example BonnDigital, which operate their own server. They still communicate it to the outside world as a kind of hobby because it is not yet a financially viable model. But there are players who are becoming active in the field of server operation. We don't focus enough on these issues, there is still a lot of brainpower to be invested.

nextMedia:Where do you see the opportunity to set positive impulses in these areas?

Björn: It's already good when public institutions also think about, mention or promote alternative platforms. That's the first step and it's already happening - I'm really pleased about that. What needs to follow now are approaches that drive this exploration forward. Exploration with a view to the question "What can advertising look like?" How can creators refinance themselves and what do business models for the operation of servers and network nodes actually look like? I would also like to say once again that I am convinced that a resilient infrastructure for information and debate is not an issue that can be regulated by market criteria alone. I think a state must ensure that there can be an independent, democratic conversation in the digital space that is not distorted by algorithms. So not everything can be regulated by monetization and business models.

nextMedia:Do you mean that cities and municipalitiesoffer a space for algorithmically undistorted communication?

Björn: I see them more as an actor on open platforms that do not have to be run by the state, but independently. Our goal must be to persuade people to switch. And when are people willing to switch? When their user needs are met! I believe that there is also an answer. Let's take information about municipal services, such as school closures, waste collection or the opening hours of swimming pools or libraries - is this information that should only be available on commercial platforms? We are calling for an obligation that content financed with public money must also be available on open platforms. So that users think: "Yes, I actually have to be there now because I can only get certain information there". In the end, there can only be a change if people want it. It won't be enough just to say: "This is better for you".

nextMedia: You are in exchange with other people who are committed to decentralized platforms. How do you network?And do you do any kind of lobbying?

Björn: It's both lobbying and networking. We've managed to do all of this very well with the Save Social initiative. I was surprised myself at how well we made connections in the fields of culture, music, business, foundations, politics and trade unions. In the end, we have to form bonds. Our goal is for open platforms to be included in the coalition agreement and for the review of privileges for Big Tech to be included in the coalition agreement. We will see whether we succeed in this (addendum: we have succeeded).

nextMedia: To conclude:Are you more concerned about AI in this context and do you see new potential for open platforms?

Björn: In my view, we can learn a lot from the discussion about media and platforms for the discussion about AI. Technology can help us, take work off our hands and relieve us of repetitive work. This also applies to AI. But we have to build AI in such a way that there is no conflict of objectives with the goals and values of our society. In my view, we need to think self-confidently about how we can not only consume and adapt the services in some makeshift way, but how we ourselves can shape and use the technology for ourselves as a society. I'm a big fan of technological innovation. I love it. But we must not forget that all of this must be value-based. In the end, AI must also strengthen our democracy, our society and make our lives better. But it won't do that if it is developed primarily to maximize profits.

nextMedia: Thank you for the interview!