When much of our information flows through private platforms, the positioning of content in the feed can be almost as important as the availability of the content itself. The United Kingdom is discussing measures to strengthen the online visibility of traditional and public service broadcasters such as BBC and ITV, an approach that has drawn criticism from the US along with accusations of censorship risks.
The controversy highlights a broader shift: media regulation is no longer just about frequencies, licences, and remote controls. It must now contend with recommendation systems operated by global companies that decide what content surfaces before users.
Prominence or interference?
Supporters of prominence rules argue that public service broadcasting fulfills functions that the attention economy does not necessarily reward, and that its discoverability should be preserved even as distribution migrates online. Critics, meanwhile, fear that the state will end up favoring certain voices and turning media policy into feed policy.
Both concerns are genuine. Leaving everything to the algorithm does not mean an absence of editorial choice: it means handing it over to the platform. Intervening by law, on the other hand, transfers part of that choice to public authorities. The democratic challenge lies in establishing transparent, limited criteria.
A dispute extending beyond the UK
The clash with the United States also shows the extent to which platform regulation has become foreign policy. Many of the companies subject to European and British rules are American, and a domestic measure can easily be interpreted in Washington as a trade or political barrier.
