The EU and the UK are trying to decide what news you see

While video killed the radio star, the internet killed the TV star - and they're not happy about it

The rise of YouTube is one of the greatest success stories of the modern internet age; a video sharing platform created in 2005 by three guys whose first video upload was a trip around a zoo.

Fast forward 21 years and the platform is getting billions of hits per day, overtaking the traditional broadcast industry and creating its own ecosystem within it.

Regular people have been able to make themselves celebrities off the back of YouTube and have gone on to impact societal culture in ways that nobody could have fathomed- just look at the Sidemen charity football match which raised millions for charity, and was viewed by millions more.

A shift in how content reaches you

While video killed the radio star, the internet killed the TV star.

And that's important, because the independence of YouTube creators is what makes it a special example of the fifth estate (citizen journalism) in a world of political bias, covert advertising and brand perception.

However, after spending years laughing at internet video, the major legacy broadcasters, and governments, are finally waking up to its potential and widespread influence.

Only at the end of last, the big hitters were lobbying for greater prominence on social platforms.

An ongoing consultation at the European Commission is currently looking into audiovisual media and the rules that "promote the competitiveness of European media companies and the cross-border circulation of media content, protect viewers and enhance cultural diversity and media pluralism, among other things."

In plain English, the EU is looking into the prominence rules around YouTube and how it promotes certain videos to certain audiences.

Meanwhile, the UK has already touched on such matters in the BBC Royal Charter Review in which it mentioned an Ofcom report which "emphasised the urgent need for prominent public service media content on video-sharing platforms like YouTube, for stable and adequate funding for a broad range of public service content, and for ambitious strategic partnerships among public service media providers to compete effectively."

Furthermore, as the UK looks to strengthen ties with the EU, it is likely that this a direction both powers may work on together.

What are 'prominence rules'

Currently, YouTube's prominence rules work on a basis of user experience. Effectively it measures user satisfaction.

If people watch a video for a long time, like it, and engage with it, it will likely be promoted by the algorithm.

This goes for most content platforms, and it is the core, juicy recipe for video virality and ultimately social media addiction - that's a whole topic for another day.

The user satisfaction cycle and feedback loop of YouTube has led to it surpassing the BBC in the number of people consuming video on its respective media platform, as per Ofcom.

The European Commission's website presents the proposal as part of "commitments in the recently presented European Democracy Shield" initiative.

It states that the evaluation will look into updating the rules to ensure:

• Appropriate visibility and prominence for European media
• A better level playing field between traditional and new digital players when it comes to advertising
• Adequate protections for viewers, particularly younger ones, when viewing audiovisual content online.

Hypocrisy manifest

While the EU can front this evaluation as a protection of democracy, the very nature of such a change would be massively hypocritical.

A turn to favour legacy media over independent news creators and sources would be a form of state censorship on a scale unheard of in a supposed liberal EU.

Yes, of course these independent sources have less regulation and monitoring than large media organisations, but platforms like YouTube already make an effort to filter out the fake from the trustworthy; maybe they need to do more, but relegating them to an afterthought is not the solution.

The damage that would be caused to an industry which generated €7bn to the EU’s GDP in 2024 and supporting more than 200,000 full-time jobs, as per research by Oxford Economics, would be catastrophic.

YouTube brings £2.2bn to the UK economy, as per the same study.

So, what's the answer?

Instead of looking to promote legacy media on YouTube over independent creators who have made the platform what it is, the EU and UK should be looking to support these independent news sources.

The fifth estate is a true pillar of democracy, one much stronger than regulation, and it should be supported for the weight it bears.

Rather than bowing to the media moguls, governments should be provided funding and services to support reliable news filtering on social media and video platform sites.

It is possible to do so with the resources and the funding, and if that's the cost for a diverse, engaging and independent news source which holds central power to account, then it is well worth the price.

Read the European Commission documents for yourself below:

Revision of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive - AVMSD

Audiovisual media services – evaluation and update of EU rules