Data octopus Meta: Blank check issued by yourself

Tech companies are using our data without regard to the law: This is nothing new. However, Meta’s updated terms of use for commercial users are terrible news.

According to the small print, the parent company of Instagram, Facebook and Whatsapp now wants to be allowed to access all possible content. The tech company not only wants to evaluate and reuse every link shared, but also the entire websites behind it. It's not really possible to object to this if you want to continue using the services. The only way to disagree is to say goodbye.

So Meta gives itself a blank check. It wants to reuse content for everything possible, such as advertising or its own products. Meta could, for example, steal journalistic work, copy it using artificial intelligence (AI) and publish it on its own platforms in competition with the medium concerned. The Federal Association of Digital Publishers and Newspaper Publishers (BDZV) and the Media Association of the Free Press (MVFP) are up in arms against this. They see a violation of applicable law – rightly so.

The taz is an independent, left-wing and opinionated daily newspaper. We have been arguing in our comments, essays and debate texts since the taz was founded in 1979. We often cannot and do not want to agree on an opinion. That's why you'll find some completely opposing positions here - all part of the very broad left-wing spectrum of opinions.

Some of Meta's ideas are, at least from a legal perspective, harmless: Linking to articles on the platform and article previews, for example, are permitted. It is also safe to train the AIs with publicly discoverable content. AI companies like OpenAI are allowed to access and use these without the explicit consent of the authors - if the latter do not object. A written reservation is sufficient and the AI ​​is not allowed to be fed the content - until now.

But what if someone disagrees with the website's code, as the taz does, for example, but agrees to the terms of use? If a trial were to take place here, the new conditions would quickly be overturned. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) requires platforms to provide fair and reasonable access.

It is also not legally permissible to simply declare something that puts users at a one-sided disadvantage. Meta would lose any lawsuit over this with its abusive conditions. Only: law takes time. And until the matter is clarified, Meta can create facts, for example by training its AI models with content. In this way, Meta is further driving the power imbalance between AI platforms and journalism.

The EU Commission could prevent this. It is both their right and their responsibility to check the terms of use of platforms and even impose penalties if necessary. To do this, it would have to quickly initiate non-compliance proceedings. Or build up pressure so that Meta voluntarily makes improvements. So it's high time that she hits it rhetorically first. If that doesn't help, the commission could use the $25 billion fine that a US court recently imposed on Meta as a model.

But unfortunately, everything so far indicates that we are moving quickly in the opposite direction: the EU's last digital reform package, the Digital Omnibus, goes a long way towards helping corporations. The digital levy planned by the federal government is also in danger of being crushed in disputes with the USA and within the coalition. It's high time to pull yourself together.