When Jeremy Corbyn outperformed expectations in the 2017 general election, a large part of his success was attributed to his ability to circumvent a largely hostile newspaper industry through his team’s deft use of social media.
A year later, the same tech companies that helped Corbyn to deprive Theresa May of a parliamentary majority are now in his line of fire.
The Labour leader will on Thursday make a series of proposals – described by his team as “ideas” rather than firm commitments – which could see levies and windfall taxes imposed on large internet companies such as Facebook and Google, with the money redirected to fund the BBC and public interest journalism.
In the process, Corbyn is reflecting how the tech giants have been transformed over the past two years from seemingly unstoppable corporations which are able to sidestep regulations to under-fire businesses hamstrung by politicians keen to rein in their power.
Crucially, the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the debate over fake news helped focus the public’s mind on the ways that the success – and extraordinary financial performance – of a handful of internet companies is changing our society.
In response, the tech companies have struggled to get their arguments across and have had to learn how to be humble.
Facebook recently responded to claims that it unfairly dominates the world of advertising by insisting that it only takes 6% of the world’s marketing spend – a figure that was instead viewed with deep jealously by its opponents and simply served to highlight its enormous revenues.
Although Corbyn’s proposals go further than those of any other UK politician, he is not alone in suggesting tax as a solution – a recent House of Commons select committee investigation into fake news called for a levy on tech companies to pay for education programmes and data regulators.
Meanwhile, some British newspapers are likely to use the government’s ongoing Cairncross review into the future of the British print media to argue for a similar levy – although they want the money to flow in their direction, rather than towards the BBC.
The BBC might be expected to welcome the promise of additional funding, but some within it are concerned about Corbyn’s idea of allowing staff and licence-payers to elect directors to the board.
There are fears that this could turn the broadcaster into even more of a political football, enabling people who are fundamentally opposed to the government of the day to be elected to the board and to have some degree of influence over the corporation’s news coverage.
However, the BBC is already facing an existential struggle. Despite its massive reach, it is seeing increasing numbers of people abandon the licence fee altogether, while competition with Amazon and Netflix’s debt-fuelled acquisition strategy has left it fighting for viewers – particularly among younger age groups.
Other parts of Corbyn’s plan lack detail. There are substantial concerns over whether the the directors of an independent fund for media – funded by the tech companies – could ever be truly independent when making decisions on which news outlets to fund. Previous attempts to establish similar schemes have foundered.
Lobby group techUK has responded to Corbyn’s proposal by pointing out that the big firms are already working with traditional news outlets “to help them transform their business models for the digital age”, but the underlying fundamentals for the media industry remain largely dire.
What’s more, Corbyn may not need the tech companies to the same extent that he once did. The tactics that worked so well for Labour during the last general election are unlikely to be repeatable as technology changes, while substantial alterations to Facebook algorithms have hit traffic to the new range of leftwing pro-Corbyn viral news sites which have sprung up over the past three years.
Online campaigning at the next election is as likely to be fought using group messaging services such as WhatsApp – a tactic already seen in several developing countries – as Facebook.
