tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/video-streaming-24372/articlesVideo streaming – The Conversation2024-03-27T13:27:14Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2258292024-03-27T13:27:14Z2024-03-27T13:27:14ZIn the fog of the video streaming wars, job losses and business closures are imminent<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584019/original/file-20240325-30-zw5640.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1077%2C0%2C4913%2C3997&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/barcelona-spain-jan-2019-man-holds-1272527956">Ivan Marc/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Prussian general and military theorist <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carl-von-Clausewitz">Carl von Clausewitz</a> presented the concept of the “fog of war” in 1832. It is a phrase that has become synonymous with the uncertainty and confusion of military battle. </p>
<p>But this expression also acts as a useful metaphor to describe the industry and market dynamics that subscription video-on-demand streaming firms find themselves operating in – that is, uncertainty.</p>
<p>This uncertainty is demonstrated by the performance of American streaming platform Disney+. Since 2019, the platform has received <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/c60bd60b-2a81-43fb-8452-fe3002e5c4cbsource?">US$10 billion</a> (£7.9 billion) of investment. But, over the same period, it has lost roughly <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonifitzgerald/2023/08/09/new-record-for-disney-sheds-117-million-subscribers-password-crackdown-coming/?sh=724e09cc1d7b">12 million customers</a>, and it posted staggering losses of more than <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/ec0f7996-fae9-4e80-baa9-020ad470c25a">US$1.6 billion</a> in 2023. </p>
<p>In November, its parent company, Walt Disney, <a href="https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/app/uploads/2023/11/q4-fy23-earnings.pdf">introduced</a> a new “cost-reduction strategy” that will aim to cut 7,000 jobs and save US$7.5 billion in the face of weakening economic conditions and tougher competition.</p>
<p><strong>Five year share price comparison: Walt Disney v New York Stock Exchange</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584020/original/file-20240325-22-2f15i6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Five year share price comparison between Walt Disney and the New York Stock Exchange." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584020/original/file-20240325-22-2f15i6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584020/original/file-20240325-22-2f15i6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584020/original/file-20240325-22-2f15i6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584020/original/file-20240325-22-2f15i6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584020/original/file-20240325-22-2f15i6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584020/original/file-20240325-22-2f15i6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584020/original/file-20240325-22-2f15i6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Disney+ loses luster as investor optimism wanes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">S&P Capital IQ</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The COVID pandemic supercharged the on-demand streaming business as consumers sought to entertain themselves during the numerous lockdowns. The streaming industry experienced a period of rapid growth, attracting a flood of new entrants lured by market growth rates of <a href="https://rm.coe.int/audiovisual-media-services-in-europe-2023-edition-a-schneeberger/1680abc9bc">40% per year</a> and potentially high profits from surging consumer demand.</p>
<p>Companies such as Netflix, Amazon, Disney+ and Apple TV gained millions of customers in a matter of months and invested billions of dollars on new content, infrastructure and marketing. It all seemed too good to be true as the “land grab” for subscriber growth and market share continued into 2022. </p>
<p>However, an easing of lockdown restrictions saw consumers vacate their sofas and give up their binge-watching TV habits, ready to explore the great outdoors again.</p>
<h2>The shakeout</h2>
<p>The streaming industry is currently characterised by an oversupply of service providers. This has led to aggressive competitive pricing where businesses set their prices based on what their competitors are charging. </p>
<p>For example, instead of Netflix basing its subscription price solely on production costs and a desired profit margin, it will consider the prevailing prices offered by its rivals in the market and find a strategic price point that allows it to be competitive while also maintaining profitability.</p>
<p>Platforms with less efficient operations or inferior offerings are starting to struggle and an “industry shakeout” is inevitable. This is where a significant number of businesses are eliminated or acquired through competition in a period of intense consolidation. </p>
<p>Think of it as a metaphorical earthquake. The ground shifts beneath established players, forcing some to adapt, some to crumble, and others to emerge even stronger.</p>
<p>Take, for instance, the Swedish streaming platform, Viaplay. Despite being much smaller than its US counterparts, it adopted an expensive international expansion <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/a148bade-3364-43ac-a450-39203919261d">strategy</a> that was fuelled by the pandemic. This strategic approach failed and Viaplay could not expand profitably outside its home market. </p>
<p>The cost of living crisis then resulted in subscriber price increases and higher customer churn as a result. Uncertainty surrounding the firm has also been made worse by the sacking of its CEO and the introduction of a plan to significantly <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/162b0c78-ee3e-4851-9d53-7fb7ce2550a1#post-b522b47e-57da-411c-ba08-6b8d5b44cfb1">cut operating costs</a>. It’s no great surprise then that the company has withdrawn its long-term guidance for sales revenue and its share price has <a href="https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/charts?s=VPLAY%20B:STO">slumped</a> by a remarkable 99% over the past 12 months.</p>
<p>This shakeout phase of industry development will result in job losses and business closures until a situation develops where a smaller number of stronger, more efficient players dominate the industry through “scale advantage”. </p>
<p>A good example of consolidation occurred in the social media industry in the early 2000s. Platforms such as MySpace, Friendster and Friends Reunited gained early popularity with consumers, but then ceased trading or became a competitive insignificance as Facebook emerged as a dominant force. To maintain its market-leading position and access new users, Facebook went on to acquire smaller competitors including <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17658264">Instagram</a> and <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26266689">WhatsApp</a> in 2012 and 2014 respectively.</p>
<p>The benefits of this “scale advantage” are more efficient access to international markets, higher profitability and the ability to deliver lower subscription prices due to the economies of scale. This is particularly beneficial to consumers at a time of inflationary pressure on discretionary spend. </p>
<h2>The outlook</h2>
<p>So, who is at risk on the battlefield of streaming wars? Even household favourites such as Netflix, with a global market share of 24%, 260 million subscribers and best-in-class content are not safe. </p>
<p><strong>Five year share price comparison: Netflix v Nasdaq</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584021/original/file-20240325-20-cz3o57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Five year share price comparison between Netflix and the Nasdaq stock exchange." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584021/original/file-20240325-20-cz3o57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/584021/original/file-20240325-20-cz3o57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584021/original/file-20240325-20-cz3o57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584021/original/file-20240325-20-cz3o57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584021/original/file-20240325-20-cz3o57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584021/original/file-20240325-20-cz3o57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/584021/original/file-20240325-20-cz3o57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Netflix loses stream: investor confidence fizzles as growth slows.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">S&P Capital IQ</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Given the current focus on corporate profitability in an industry likely to consolidate, Netflix’s ability to produce a <a href="https://s22.q4cdn.com/959853165/files/doc_financials/2023/q4/NEW-FINAL-Q4-23-Shareholder-Letter.pdf">net profit</a> of more than US$5 billion and an impressive operating margin of 21% in 2023 will make it a potential target for acquisition. This is particularly the case given that the size of the company, at US$264 billion, is relatively small compared to larger competitors such as Apple (US$2.75 trillion) and Amazon (US$1.84 trillion).</p>
<p>The “fog of streaming war” will clear and the strategic uncertainty caused by lower market growth rates, inflationary pressure and economic weakness will decrease. As such, competitive industry positions will become more established, normalised and defended. </p>
<p>The key question facing most media companies in the future will be how to make subscription video-on-demand streaming a profitable part of their business.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225829/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John J Oliver does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The video streaming industry has reached a tipping point.John J Oliver, Professor of Strategic Media Management, Bournemouth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1945582022-12-08T09:08:33Z2022-12-08T09:08:33ZCould video streaming be as bad for the climate as driving a car? Calculating Internet’s hidden carbon footprint<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/497206/original/file-20221124-22-632ace.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C2%2C1500%2C839&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Internet is anything but immaterial, as all those messages, images, and videos live in data centres, which consume immense amounts of energy.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rawpixel</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>We are used to thinking that going digital means going green. While that is true for some activities – for example, making a video call to the other side of the ocean is better than flying there – the situation is subtler in many other cases. For example, driving a small car to the movie theatre with a friend may have lower carbon emissions than streaming the same movie alone at home.</p>
<p>How do we reach this conclusion? Surprisingly, making these estimates is fairly complicated. This is due to two reasons: we do not have good data to start with, and even when we do, the comparison with other human activities is often difficult to make. In a September 2022 report, <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/data-centres-and-data-transmission-networks">“Data Centres and Data Transmission Networks”</a>, the International Energy Agency (IEA) stated:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“There are currently no comprehensive data on the energy use of all data centre operators globally, so this estimated range is based on bottom-up models.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is remarkable given that we have been able to estimate quite accurately phenomena that are much more complex. In this case, we would only need quantitative information – the electrical energy and the amount of data used – that can be determined with great accuracy. The current situation is not acceptable and should be addressed soon by policymakers.</p>
<p>Talking of tons of CO<sub>2</sub> emitted, kilowatt-hours for electricity, cubic metres for gas, litres of gasoline and cars’ horsepower creates confusion in many, including academics. Most people would not be able to say how much energy they use daily nor what level of emissions these activities cause. But they would be able to tell you right away their salary or monthly rent. The ease of talking about money lies in the fact that we humans long ago decided that a commonly held currency was the best way to trade disparate things. We don’t do this for our energy use, hence the difficulty.</p>
<p>There is no reason not to change the situation, however: the beauty of the concept of “energy” is that nature gave it to us as a number that is <a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/conservation-of-energy">mysteriously conserved</a> even when we change its form – for example, from electrical to thermal. Hence, we can always convert it into a single convenient unit, which would make it easy for us to understand the impact of our activities on the planet, including the digital ones.</p>
<h2>Apples to apples</h2>
<p>Let’s see how this could work by spelling out some examples. We choose the energy unit to be the kilowatt-hour (kWh). This proposal was made by David MacKay in his 2008 book <a href="https://www.withouthotair.com/"><em>Sustainable Energy, Without the Hot Air</em></a>. Why the amount of energy used rather than the CO<sub>2</sub> emitted? On the global level, the two concepts are equivalent, given that CO<sub>2</sub> emissions are proportional to the amount of non-renewable energy produced. But almost none of us has an intuitive idea of what a ton of CO<sub>2</sub> is, let alone its global scale values, or how it is generated. On the contrary, almost all of us can read an energy bill and relate it to what was done at home.</p>
<p>Here are three examples:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>A 10W light bulb kept on for an hour will consume 0.01 kWh of energy (1 kWh = 1,000 Wh).</p></li>
<li><p>A car driven in a city for one hour using an average power of 10 kW (approximately 13 horsepower) will consume 10 kWh.</p></li>
<li><p>In Northern Italy during winter, heating an apartment using 10 cubic metres of gas requires approximately 100 kWh per day or 4 kWh for each hour.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>When these activities are compared with the same units, it is clear that there are some (driving, heating) that would have a much broader impact than others (lighting) if their use is curtailed.</p>
<h2>A two-hour film pollutes as much as a 45-minute car drive</h2>
<p>With this in mind, let’s try to estimate the use of Internet in the same units. What we are after now is the amount of energy for a given amount of data transferred, expressed in gigabytes (GB). As mentioned, there are surprisingly no consistent numbers available. Estimates range from 0.1 kWh per GB (<a href="https://pisrt.org/psr-press/journals/easl-vol-3-issue-2-2020/new-perspectives-on-internet-electricity-use-in-2030/">Andrae</a>, Huwaei) to 10 kWh per GB (<a href="https://medium.com/stanford-magazine/carbon-and-the-cloud-d6f481b79dfe">Adamson</a>, <em>Stanford Magazine</em>) – 100 times more. The lower number seems to assume an unrealistic amount of data, almost 10 times the one reported by the World Bank, and implying an average worldwide data usage which is still uncommon even for the Western world (3,000 GB per year rather than 300). On the other hand, the higher estimate seems to have not considered the latest developments in energy efficiency due to new technologies.</p>
<p>It seems that a value of 1 kWh per GB could be a reasonable approximation of the current energy cost of data. Using that estimate, we can now more easily compare the energy use of data with other human activities. For instance, a two-hour movie in 4K resolution is about 7 GB, or approximately 7 kWh of energy, comparable to a 45-minute car drive. This is mind-boggling for something that we perceive as immaterial. Similar estimates would make you figure out that 300 Google searches use approximately 0.1 kWh, which is the same energy required to boil one litre of water starting from 20 degree Celsius, another mind-boggling realisation.</p>
<p>It is possible and plausible that technology will make Internet more energy efficient – that is what many of us physicists try to help with while studying novel materials and approaches to store and manipulate data. However, if we keep increasing the data usage, we will not decrease our energy use. For instance, movies in 8K resolution require four times more data than in 4K resolution.</p>
<h2>Consumption on the rise</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/497040/original/file-20221123-14-j3he9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Global Internet usage, 2002-2022" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/497040/original/file-20221123-14-j3he9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/497040/original/file-20221123-14-j3he9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=304&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497040/original/file-20221123-14-j3he9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=304&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497040/original/file-20221123-14-j3he9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=304&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497040/original/file-20221123-14-j3he9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497040/original/file-20221123-14-j3he9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497040/original/file-20221123-14-j3he9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In 2002, global Internet usage was just 156 GB. Twenty years later, traffic is approximately 150,000 GB per second, nearly a thousand-fold increase.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://wdr2021.worldbank.org/stories/crossing-borders/">WDR 2021, Cisco Visual Networking Index, 2017–2022</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The proof is that for several years now, the annual energy consumption of information and communication technology infrastructure is constantly at least 2,000 TWh, 5% of the global electricity use. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06610-y">Projections suggest that we will reach 10% by 2030</a>, indicating that technology may not keep up unless we introduce fundamental new approaches.</p>
<p>There is no doubt that the Internet and a more digital life offer an incredible opportunity to decrease our energy use and reduce our carbon footprint. For example, a single person on a fully loaded long-range round-trip plane flight – say from Venice, Italy, to Los Angeles, California – to attend an in-person meeting has an energy cost of 10 000 kWh. Using the estimates above, it would take eight months of 12-hour-long video meetings in 4K resolution for that person to consume the same energy. In this case, there is no doubt that streaming, not flying, is the best choice.</p>
<p>As with all technology, however, Internet use has an energy cost. It is proportional to the amount of data transferred, and use is highest with images and especially video. When heavily used, its impact becomes comparable to the one of activities that we already recognise as energy-hungry, such as driving a car. We clearly need more precise numbers to take the appropriate measures at the political level.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Two women looking at a computer screen" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/497041/original/file-20221123-12-j3raez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C224%2C5760%2C3474&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/497041/original/file-20221123-12-j3raez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497041/original/file-20221123-12-j3raez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497041/original/file-20221123-12-j3raez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497041/original/file-20221123-12-j3raez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497041/original/file-20221123-12-j3raez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497041/original/file-20221123-12-j3raez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Watching a movie online can seem like an energy-smart choice, but research shows that the carbon emissions can be significant.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/two-women-in-front-of-silver-macbook-1181723/">Christina Morillo/Pexels</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In advance of having them, we as private individuals can use data in a considerate manner:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Turn off the camera when not needed in a video call.</p></li>
<li><p>Decrease the video resolution when possible, particularly on small screens.</p></li>
<li><p>Watch movies when they are broadcast rather than using on-demand services, which require dedicated computational power and data for each viewer.</p></li>
<li><p>Finally, let’s start thinking in kWh about everything we do, and do our part to help the implementation of such a standard. In this way, we will talk with the same energy currency, as we do with money.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>To help make this happen, write to your gas company, car manufacturer, grocery store and any manufacturers to get them to provide numbers in kWh of everything they sell. This would allow us to set up individual “energy wallets” and decide how to spend what we have in a sustainable way and thus reach our climate goals. Once these goals are defined in a clear and concrete way, it will much easier for individuals, companies and governments to take a sensible course of action every day, in all things large and small.</p>
<p>Part of the frustration that many of us experience these days is that we feel powerless against climate change because we do not have a concrete representation of how to do something about it in our daily life. By talking about the problems in units that we understand and perceive, we will close the gap between the local and the global scales, and hence be more effective in our actions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/194558/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stefano Bonetti ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.</span></em></p>The energy consumption of Internet use has multiplied by a thousand-fold in 20 years. So how can we better visualise our energy ‘spending’ and reduce carbon emissions?Stefano Bonetti, Professor of Experimental Condensed Matter Physics, Ca' Foscari University of VeniceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1839902022-06-21T19:58:11Z2022-06-21T19:58:11ZLevelling up: why Netflix and TikTok are turning to gaming to secure their future<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469918/original/file-20220621-21-zc1000.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=84%2C0%2C3941%2C3017&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/29/netflix-and-rivals-enter-pivotal-second-act-of-streaming-wars-saga.html">streaming wars</a> are heating up. In March, Disney delayed the release date of <a href="https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/obi-wan-kenobi-release-date-fridays-1235219887/">Obi-Wan Kenobi</a> to May 27 to coincide with the launch of Netflix’s <a href="https://top10.netflix.com/tv">top show</a>, Stranger Things. This on the back of Google’s announcement YouTube Shorts had <a href="https://mashable.com/article/youtube-shorts-1-5-billion-monthly-users">matched TikTok’s 1.5 billion subscribers</a> in the short-form video market. </p>
<p>Facing increased competition, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/apr/20/netflix-shares-fall-losing-subscribers">falling subscriber numbers</a> and loss of content, Netflix and TikTok are having to diversify. And for this they’re turning to games. With more than three billion players worldwide, and an estimated market share of US$200 billion, the gaming industry is both <a href="https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/games-market-revenues-will-pass-200-billion-for-the-first-time-in-2022-as-the-u-s-overtakes-china#:%7E:text=Yearly%20mobile%20game%20revenues%20will,driven%20growth%20of%20prior%20years.">popular and lucrative</a>. </p>
<p>Netflix <a href="https://about.netflix.com/en/news/let-the-games-begin-a-new-way-to-experience-entertainment-on-mobile">introduced</a> mobile gaming last year for all its subscribers. This included two notable Stranger Things tie-ins. Meanwhile, TikTok has offered games to select users since 2019 and seems very likely to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-tiktok-plans-big-push-into-gaming-conducting-tests-vietnam-sources-2022-05-19/">expand these offerings</a>.</p>
<h2>Retaining existing subscribers</h2>
<p>Both Netflix and TikTok have transformed the entertainment business. </p>
<p>They appear <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac020">diametrically opposed on the surface</a>. The former gets revenue from subscriptions, and spends millions of dollars on licensing or creating content. The latter makes money by linking viewers to advertisers, with the help of streaming “influencers” who have mastered the art of short-form video. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469901/original/file-20220621-19-k6jyri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Young woman uses a ring light set up behind her phone" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469901/original/file-20220621-19-k6jyri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469901/original/file-20220621-19-k6jyri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469901/original/file-20220621-19-k6jyri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469901/original/file-20220621-19-k6jyri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469901/original/file-20220621-19-k6jyri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469901/original/file-20220621-19-k6jyri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469901/original/file-20220621-19-k6jyri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">With the rise of Youtube Shorts, TikTok is facing increased competition.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-woman-making-photo-video-content-1976805215">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, the two platforms share some key characteristics. They both:</p>
<ol>
<li>deliver video content via the internet</li>
<li>aim to constantly grow their user base </li>
<li>benefit from unique and original content</li>
<li>collect user data and use it to improve their services, and </li>
<li>face considerable and rising competition from other companies and entertainment media.</li>
</ol>
<p>Many well-loved films and television series are <a href="https://www.digitaltrends.com/movies/best-movies-leaving-netflix/">departing Netflix</a> for competitor platforms. At the same time, TikTok is also losing short-form video influencers to other <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/tiktok-creators-youtube-shorts-amid-insane-subscriber-growth-1235002615/">platforms</a>. Both platforms are seeking new strategies for subscriber retention, growth, and original content. </p>
<p>This is where gaming comes in. According to one consumer insights report, 79% of the world’s online population <a href="https://newzoo.com/insights/trend-reports/how-consumers-are-engaging-with-games-in-2022">engages with games</a> in some form. And millennials rate gaming as either the most popular, or second-most popular entertainment activity – behind watching other people play games on video platforms.</p>
<h2>Why is gaming an attractive space?</h2>
<p>Games typically afford longer engagement periods than series or movies. This is due to the psychological <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01731">principles of motivation</a> that underpin most gameplay.</p>
<p>People invested in games will often seek out additional narrative (or “lore”) in the form of shows and movies. Alternatively, audiences invested in shows may also look to video games to provide alternative narratives and opportunities for world-building. So shows lead customers to games, and games keep them engaged between season releases.</p>
<p>This technique of telling a story across multiple platforms and formats is known as “<a href="https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191800986.001.0001/acref-9780191800986-e-3472">transmedia storytelling</a>” and has been used with <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/joeescobedo/2017/07/01/meet-the-man-behind-hollywood-and-fortune-500-firms-transmedia-success/?sh=3766654233da">great success</a> by broadcast, social media and gaming companies. This is what platforms are banking on to keep audiences locked into their entertainment ecosystems. </p>
<p>Content creation has <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2021/11/18/four-reasons-why-the-creator-economy-is-booming/?sh=7534840b53de">boomed since the pandemic</a>, and younger audiences are spending more time than ever watching user-generated content online. They have been particularly tuned into games such as <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1782210/Crab_Game/">Crab Game</a> (a fan-made version of the popular Netflix show Squid Game) – which also has <a href="https://sullygnome.com/game/Crab_Game">millions of view hours</a> on the streaming service Twitch.</p>
<p>The rise of Minecraft as a popular <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattgardner1/2022/04/07/game-modding-offers-huge-financial-opportunities-for-studios-in-2022/?sh=1f40a3cb590d">“modding” game</a> (in which players can collectively transform the game space through their own modifications) has also helped video streaming and subscription services. Minecraft-related videos have been streamed more than <a href="https://www.youtube.com/trends/articles/minecraft-trillion/">one trillion times on YouTube</a>. </p>
<p>Transmedia success provides additional avenues for companies looking to leverage their licensed or original copyrighted content. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469625/original/file-20220619-14-dvp1cf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Minecraft has been viewed over one trillion times" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469625/original/file-20220619-14-dvp1cf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469625/original/file-20220619-14-dvp1cf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=220&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469625/original/file-20220619-14-dvp1cf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=220&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469625/original/file-20220619-14-dvp1cf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=220&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469625/original/file-20220619-14-dvp1cf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=276&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469625/original/file-20220619-14-dvp1cf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=276&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469625/original/file-20220619-14-dvp1cf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=276&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Minecraft videos have been viewed more than one trillion times on YouTube.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">YouTube</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Intellectual property and data analytics</h2>
<p>We know games promote attention, motivation, emotion and socialising among players. </p>
<p>Companies such as the game-hosting platform Steam have demonstrated <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/oldnews/2488">user data can influence</a> the creation of new content by game developers. In fact, this is a market advantage that Netflix and TikTok have over rivals.</p>
<p>For example, one could easily imagine that a character who is popular in a game, as revealed through gaming data, would also be more likely to feature in an upcoming show based on that game. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469627/original/file-20220619-27-weuzv4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Gameplay stats and achievements from Netflix Stranger Things 3: The Game" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469627/original/file-20220619-27-weuzv4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469627/original/file-20220619-27-weuzv4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=762&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469627/original/file-20220619-27-weuzv4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=762&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469627/original/file-20220619-27-weuzv4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=762&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469627/original/file-20220619-27-weuzv4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=957&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469627/original/file-20220619-27-weuzv4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=957&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469627/original/file-20220619-27-weuzv4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=957&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gameplay stats can be used by companies to help design future producers, with a focus on what users engage with most.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">STEAM</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Netflix and TikTok can lose big</h2>
<p>When we speak of the streaming wars and greater competition, it’s not a level playing field. There are crucial differences between Netflix and TikTok, and other players such as Disney+, Amazon Prime, Apple TV and YouTube.</p>
<p>Netflix is in the streaming business, and TikTok in the video-hosting industry. On the other hand, based on revenue Disney is in the theme park and toy business, Amazon the online sales industry, Apple the computing and phone industry, and Google in the search and advertising industry.</p>
<p>For these companies, streaming and video hosting is a small side business that provides useful data to feed a greater machine. So in the “streaming wars” they don’t have as much to lose, as they can run these side businesses at a loss. </p>
<p>Netflix and TikTok aren’t so lucky. By turning to games, they’re grabbing onto a lifeline they really need.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469906/original/file-20220621-13-wrrp6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="An iPad with Netflix, HBO, Prime Video, Hulu and Disney+" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469906/original/file-20220621-13-wrrp6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469906/original/file-20220621-13-wrrp6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469906/original/file-20220621-13-wrrp6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469906/original/file-20220621-13-wrrp6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469906/original/file-20220621-13-wrrp6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469906/original/file-20220621-13-wrrp6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469906/original/file-20220621-13-wrrp6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Netflix’s list of competitors is growing, and there’s now a variety of streaming services including HBO, Amazon Prime Video and Hulu.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/barcelona-spain-jan-2019-man-holds-1272527956">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-netflix-affects-what-we-watch-and-who-we-are-and-its-not-just-the-algorithm-169897">How Netflix affects what we watch and who we are -- and it's not just the algorithm</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/183990/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Netflix and TikTok were both first-movers, but unlike larger businesses they haven’t diversified their services very much. It seems they’re starting with gaming.James Birt, Associate Professor of Computer Games and Associate Dean Engagement, Bond UniversityDarren Paul Fisher, Assistant Professor, Head of Directing, Department of Film, Screen and Creative Media, Bond UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1716462022-01-05T18:42:07Z2022-01-05T18:42:07ZFrom speed viewing to watching the end first: how streaming has changed the way we consume TV<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/438688/original/file-20211221-15-gj0hmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Be kind rewind.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/image-photo/kaunas-lithuania-2021-october-4-watching-2052880862">Rokas Tenys/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 2010, there were around 200 television programs in the United States and only 4% of them aired on streaming networks such as Netflix. By 2020, this number had <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonifitzgerald/2020/01/10/how-many-is-too-many-there-are-now-more-than-500-tv-shows/">more than doubled</a>.</p>
<p>Thanks to streaming platforms such as Netflix and Hulu, viewers can now access more narrative content than ever before. We conducted a <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/48/4/651/5906524">study</a> to understand how this digital disruption has affected how we watch TV.</p>
<p>Our findings show that streaming services have changed the way we watch television series, and that fans are much more active than expected when tuning in.</p>
<p>We conducted an extensive program of research combining several methods from the traditional (interviews with viewers, diaries, analysis of fan forums) to the more creative (recording people watching TV series in their own homes). We studied 30 viewers and analysed online forums for seven TV shows (35 threads with 16,528 messages).</p>
<h2>Skipping, speeding and spoiling</h2>
<p>In contrast with traditional notions of passive viewing, we find that series fans want to be in control. While some watch episodes from start to finish, many re-watch scenes or skip unwanted content (including nudity, violence, or scenes with a specific character they dislike).</p>
<p>Some fans report watching all or part of their series in fast forward (or “speed-watching”) to consume as much content as possible in a short amount of time.</p>
<p>As one <em>House of Cards</em> fan posted on an online forum:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“It’s game on when the season drops… in the mad dash I power through the episodes on ff [fast forward]. It distorts the voices a bit and the scenes are a little more cartoon-like but I can see a whole episode in under 30 minutes.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Others choose to watch the ending of the series first to ensure they will enjoy it, and therefore make sure that the show is worth investing time in.</p>
<p>Amy* told us in an interview:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I watch happy stuff because it’s not always happy in life. In life, you don’t know the ending. This one, you have control over the ending and choose if you want to experience it, I guess. It’s the worst thing to put all the effort in and not get the reward at the end.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And while many go to great length to avoid spoilers, they are actually appreciated by some fans, who read detailed online plot summaries before watching a show to manage their emotions.</p>
<p>Often, the weight of suspense proves too much for some viewers. Spoilers help reduce the anxiety they experience when they don’t know what will happen next.</p>
<p>Many dedicated fans look for additional information about the series or the actors on Wikipedia or read online forums and fan theories to enhance their understanding of the author’s intentions and the characters’ motivations.</p>
<p>As Nora* put it in an interview:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Maybe it’s my bit to sort of understand from a writer’s point of view where the story is going and what the immediate end is going to be.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>By taking charge of how they watch TV series, fans can maximise their enjoyment in times in which many things are beyond their control.</p>
<h2>Choose your own adventure</h2>
<p>Our findings have implications for series producers and streaming platforms. Producers can cater to those who want deeper engagement by offering additional content that adds value to the narrative (for example in episode after parties like <em>The Walking Dead</em>’s <a href="https://www.amc.com/twdu/talking-dead">Talking Dead</a>).</p>
<p>They can also facilitate fan engagement and discussions with people at different points in the narrative: those who watched the show as it was originally aired, those who come to it long after production has ended and everything in between. This requires hosting fan discussions based on content units (seasons, arcs, episodes) and signposting spoilers so viewers can opt in or out of content reveals.</p>
<p>Because we find some TV series fans like to skip specific scenes, streaming services could offer filters to enable consumers to easily select the content of narratives. Storylines with adult content (nudity, drug use, violence) could explicitly locate important plot or character points outside the adult content for people who don’t want to watch these scenes.</p>
<p>Beyond adult content, our finding that viewers consistently skipped scenes with specific characters or subplots suggests other potential filters or technologies to accommodate viewer habits. Allowing viewers to customise the episodes around favourite characters, producers could package content based on character development and character-specific plot components.</p>
<p>Our participants’ desire to be in control also suggests that, like in the world of gaming, TV series viewers could run the story themselves. Producers may choose to write and film multiple narrative options, like a “Choose Your Own Adventure” book, a format already seen in the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/12/28/680671691/black-mirror-bandersnatch-makes-you-choose-your-own-adventure">Bandersnatch episode of <em>Black Mirror</em></a>, which garnered critical and popular acclaim.</p>
<p>The future of storytelling will be found in this multiverse of participatory media in which viewers are empowered to skip forward and backward, to slow down and speed up, to edit the plot and make their own adventures.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>* Participants’ names have been changed.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171646/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephanie Feiereisen a reçu des financements de Montpellier Business School et Bayes Business School. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cristel Antonia Russell, Dina Rasolofoarison et Hope Schau ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur poste universitaire.</span></em></p>Some viewers purposefully seek out spoilers, others skip scenes with characters they don’t like. The advent of streaming has made viewers more actives and producers should take note.Stephanie Feiereisen, Associate Professor of Marketing, Montpellier Business SchoolCristel Antonia Russell, Professor of Marketing, Pepperdine UniversityDina Rasolofoarison, Maitresse de Conférences en Marketing et Communication, Université Paris Dauphine – PSLHope Schau, Eller Professor of Marketing, University of ArizonaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1673622021-09-17T03:55:26Z2021-09-17T03:55:26ZWhy does my internet connection feel slow and jumpy, even when my internet speed is high?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421759/original/file-20210917-27-slj4h3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C40%2C5472%2C3530&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jeshoots.com/Unsplash</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Of the 8.2 million homes and businesses active on Australia’s National Broadband Network (NBN) in July 2021, 77% are now <a href="https://www.nbnco.com.au/corporate-information/about-nbn-co/updates/dashboard-july-2021">reported</a> to be on a broadband plan that delivers speeds of at least 50 megabits per second (Mbps). This is plenty to accommodate a typical household’s needs for video streaming (Netflix high-definition resolution, for instance, uses about 3Mbps and ultra-high definition about 12Mbps), video conferencing (2-3Mbps), gaming (less than 1Mbps) and general web browsing. </p>
<p>So why do we still experience video freeze, game lag spikes, and teleconference stutters? The problem is not speed, but other factors such as latency and loss, which are unrelated to speed.</p>
<p>For more than three decades we have been conditioned to think of broadband in terms of Mbps. This made sense when we had dial-up internet, over which web pages took many seconds to load, and when DSL lines could not support more than one video stream at a time. </p>
<p>But once speeds approach 100Mbps and beyond, studies from the <a href="https://www.broadband-forum.org/an-economic-argument-for-moving-away-from-mbps">Broadband Forum</a> and others show that further increases are largely imperceptible to users.</p>
<p>Yet Australian consumers fear being caught short on broadband speed. More than half a million Australians moved to plans delivering <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/record-number-of-australians-move-to-very-high-speed-nbn-plans">more than 250Mbps</a> in the March 2021 quarter. Indeed, we have collectively bought about 410 terabits per second (Tbps) on our speed plans, while actual usage peaks at 23Tbps. This suggests we collectively use less than 6% of the speed we pay for! </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-boost-your-internet-speed-when-everyone-is-working-from-home-135313">How to boost your internet speed when everyone is working from home</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In contrast to our need for speed, our online time has grown tremendously. According to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), the average Australian household <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Internet%20Activity%20Report%20%28December%202020%29.pdf">consumed 355 gigabytes of data in December 2020</a>, a 59% increase on the year before. </p>
<p>Our internet usage is like a marathon runner gradually adding more and more miles to their training distances, rather than a sprinter reaching higher and higher top speeds. It therefore makes little sense to judge our multi-hour marathon of video streaming, gaming and teleconferencing by running a connection speed test which is a 5-10 second sprint. </p>
<h2>What do we really need from broadband?</h2>
<p>So what do we need from our broadband for a good streaming, gaming or conferencing experience? A connection that offers low and relatively constant <em>latency</em> (the time taken to move data packets from the server to your house) and <em>loss</em> (the proportion of data packets that are lost in transit). </p>
<p>These factors in turn depend on how well your internet service provider (ISP) has engineered and tuned its network.</p>
<p>To reduce latency, your ISP can deploy local caches that store a copy of the videos you want to watch, and local game servers to host your favourite e-sport titles, thereby reducing the need for long-haul transport. They can also provide good routing paths to servers, thereby avoiding poor-quality or congested links. </p>
<p>To manage loss, ISPs “shape” their traffic by temporarily holding packets in buffers to smooth out transient load spikes. But there’s a natural trade-off here: too much smoothing holds packets back, leading to latency spikes that cause missed gunshots in games and stutters in conferences. Too little smoothing, on the other hand, causes buffers to overflow and packets to be lost, which puts the brakes on downloads.</p>
<p>ISPs therefore have to tune their network to balance performance across the various applications. But with the ACCC’s <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/internet-landline-services/broadband-performance-data">Measuring Broadband Australia (MBA) Program</a> predominantly focused on speed-testing, and with a 1% margin separating the top three ISPs all keen to claim the top spot, we are inadvertently incentivising ISPs to optimise their network for speed, rather than for other factors. </p>
<p>This is a detrimental outcome for users, because we don’t really have quite the need for speed we think we do.</p>
<h2>How can we do better?</h2>
<p>An alternative approach is possible. With advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technology, it is now becoming possible to analyse network traffic streams to assess users’ experience in an application-aware manner. </p>
<p>For example, AI engines trained on the pattern of video “chunk” fetches of <a href="http://www2.ee.unsw.edu.au/%7Evijay/pubs/conf/19tma.pdf">on-demand streams</a> such as Netflix, and <a href="http://www2.ee.unsw.edu.au/%7Evijay/pubs/conf/21iwqos.pdf">live streams</a> such as Twitch, can infer whether they are playing at the best available resolution and without freeze. </p>
<p>Similarly, AI engines can <a href="https://www.ausnog.net/sites/default/files/ausnog-2019/presentations/2.1_Vijay_Sivaraman_AusNOG2019.pdf">analyse traffic</a> throughout the various stages of games such as CounterStrike, Call of Duty or Dota2 to track issues such as lag spikes. And they can detect videoconferencing stutters and dropouts by analysing traffic on Zoom, Teams, and other platforms.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-my-ip-address-explaining-one-of-the-worlds-most-googled-questions-167316">'What is my IP address?' Explaining one of the world's most Googled questions</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Australia has made significant public investment into a national broadband infrastructure that is now well equipped to provide more-than-adequate speed to citizens, as long as it runs as efficiently as possible.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/167362/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>In addition to his academic appointment, Vijay Sivaraman is co-founder and part-time CEO of Canopus Networks, which develops network traffic analytics software. He has received funding from many organisations including Google, Cisco, HPE, Optus, Telstra, NBN, Canopus and ACCAN. He is affiliated with the IEEE.</span></em></p>You can measure the speed of your broadband connection, but that’s not the whole story. Your network provider also has to manage factors such as data loss and latency to ensure a smooth connection.Vijay Sivaraman, Professor of Telecommunications and Internet Technologies, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1660902021-08-17T05:49:55Z2021-08-17T05:49:55ZThe more video streaming services we get, the more we’ll turn to piracy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416433/original/file-20210817-22-evwrgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C81%2C6016%2C3044&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With the launch of the <a href="https://www.paramountplus.com/">Paramount+</a>, Australian consumers of video streaming are arguably drowning in choice. </p>
<p>We now have more than a dozen “<a href="https://www.canstarblue.com.au/streaming/australia-streaming-services/">subscription video on demand</a>” services to choose from, with many dozens more options available <a href="https://flixed.io/complete-list-streaming-services-2021/">worldwide</a> to anyone with a VPN to get around geoblocks. </p>
<p>But all this competition isn’t actually making things easier. It’s likely all this “choice” will see more of us turning to piracy to watch our favourite films and televisions shows.</p>
<p>The problem is that services are competing (at least in part) through offering exclusive content and original programming. </p>
<p>Paramount+, for example, is offering content from Paramount Pictures and other entertainment companies owned by entertainment conglomerate ViaComCBS. These include Showtime, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central. Its catalogue ranges from the Indiana Jones and Harry Potter movies to popular TV shows Dexter, NCIS and The Big Bang Theory. </p>
<p>This content may have been available on your preferred services. But <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-11/guide-to-paramount-plus-shows-price/100367094">the end goal</a> — as with Disney+ and others — is for all ViaComCBS-owned content to be exclusive to Paramount+.</p>
<p>Here the problem for the consumer becomes evident. How many subscription services do you want to join? Subscribing to the six most popular video streaming services — Netflix, Stan, Disney+, Amazon Prime Video, Binge, and Apple TV+ — will cost you about $60 a month. How much more are you willing to pay for a new service to watch a favourites film or TV show now only that service?</p>
<p>The temptation to turn to piracy is clear.</p>
<h2>Losing aggregation</h2>
<p>The emergence of video streaming services such as Netflix <a href="https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2020.1256">was heralded</a> as an effective way to curb illegal downloads. But how Netflix did this at first was in aggregating content. It provided a convenient, cost-effective and legal way to access a large catalogue of TV shows and movies; and consumers <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-24911187">embraced</a> it.</p>
<p>But as the streaming market has developed, the loss of content aggregation appears to be leading back to piracy. </p>
<p>As an example, according to analytics company Sandvine, the file-sharing tool BitTorrent accounted for 31% of all uploads in 2018; in 2019 it was <a href="https://www.sandvine.com/hubfs/Sandvine_Redesign_2019/Downloads/Internet%20Phenomena/Internet%20Phenomena%20Report%20Q32019%2020190910.pdf">45%</a>. As Sandvine explained:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When Netflix aggregated video, we saw a decline in file sharing worldwide, especially in the US, where Netflix’s library was large and comprehensive. As
new original content has become more exclusive to other streaming services, consumers are turning to file sharing to get access to those exclusives since
they can’t or won’t pay money just for a few shows. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This trend has been amplified by COVID-19 lockdowns, with traffic to illegal TV and movie sites reportedly <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-lockdowns-lead-to-surge-in-digital-piracy-11587634202">surging in 2020</a>. A survey for the Australian Government found <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/documents/2020-consumer-copyright-infringement-survey">34% of respondents</a> consumed some form of illegal content in 2020. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-amazons-purchase-of-mgm-mark-the-end-of-netflixs-reign-162158">Will Amazon's purchase of MGM mark the end of Netflix's reign?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Lessons from music</h2>
<p>Why should this be happening more for TV shows and movies and not for music?</p>
<p>There’s an important difference. Services such as Spotify, Apple Music and Tidal offer you just about all the music there is. You don’t need to sign up to one to listen to The Beatles and another to hear Taylor Swift. You need only sign up to one.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Music streaming services have the benefit of being a one-stop shop." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416459/original/file-20210817-23-1p4vqhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416459/original/file-20210817-23-1p4vqhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416459/original/file-20210817-23-1p4vqhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416459/original/file-20210817-23-1p4vqhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416459/original/file-20210817-23-1p4vqhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416459/original/file-20210817-23-1p4vqhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/416459/original/file-20210817-23-1p4vqhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Music streaming services have the benefit of being a one-stop shop.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ymgerman/Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/425103">Research</a> has shown that a consumer’s willingness to pay is often anchored around the initial information they are exposed to. Viewers accustomed to paying for one streaming service might be reluctant to pay for as many as six.</p>
<p>In a survey of about 3,000 US TV watchers in February, <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90637380/56-of-connected-device-users-are-overwhelmed-by-the-number-of-streaming-services-to-choose-from">56% said they felt overwhelmed </a> by the number of streaming services on offer. </p>
<p>Deloitte’s <a href="https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/au-deloitte-tel-media-consumer-survey-2019-report.pdf">Australian Media Consumer Survey 2019</a> found that almost half of streaming video on demand subscribers said it was hard to know what content is available on what service. Three-quarters said they wanted the content in one place, rather than having to hunt through multiple services.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/stream-weavers-the-musicians-dilemma-in-spotifys-pay-to-play-plan-151479">Stream weavers: the musicians' dilemma in Spotify's pay-to-play plan</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Seeking a one-stop shop</h2>
<p>Although it is not yet clear how many video streaming services the Australian market can support, high-profile failures both <a href="https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/goodbye-presto-foxtel-seven-west-media-streaming-service-to-shut-down/">at home</a> and <a href="https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/11/18/reasons-why-quibi-failed-other-streaming-services/">overseas</a> should serve as a warning. </p>
<p>But in the absence of a legal one-stop-shop for TV and movies, people will take matters into their own hands. </p>
<p>Illegal streaming platforms that aggregate content from multiple video streaming services into a single interface are becoming more widespread. Such services typically use an open-source media player, coupled with cheap <a href="https://www.firesticktricks.com/jailbreak-fire-stick.html">jailbroken hardware</a> and a VPN to access a plethora of illegal entertainment. </p>
<p>Until the industry offers a legal alternative to such platforms, the popularity of such services is only likely to grow.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/166090/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>All this ‘choice’ in streaming video on demand is undermining the market benefits of aggregation.Paul Crosby, Lecturer, Department of Economics, Macquarie UniversityJordi McKenzie, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1658562021-08-10T12:25:45Z2021-08-10T12:25:45ZBeyond the ratings, NBC’s Olympics telecast showed video’s future<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415295/original/file-20210809-25-fg45dp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C33%2C7399%2C4892&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The cameras at the Olympics supplied video to television broadcasts – and to online streams.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/TokyoOlympicsAthletics/44c831ed99094c38bf062d64a23a20fa/photo">AP Photo/David J. Phillip</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>NBC’s Olympic Games programming from Tokyo has proved <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/nbc-sets-olympic-ad-sales-record-coronavirus-uncertainty-1282384/">a historic success</a>.</p>
<p>Perhaps you’ve heard otherwise. Much reporting <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/05/business/media/nbc-olympics-tv-ratings.html">focused upon the decline</a> in traditional Olympic TV ratings. On Twitter, Washington Post media reporter Paul Farhi went so far as to call the precipitous viewership decline <a href="https://twitter.com/farhip/status/1419867521486884869">a “catastrophic” development</a> for NBC.</p>
<p>Ratings still matter. But focusing narrowly on ratings mistakenly applies a 20th-century audience metric to a 21st-century event. The classic audience measurement can’t conclusively determine NBC’s success. In evaluating the Tokyo Games by traditional TV measures, critics miss NBC’s insight about how <a href="https://sports.yahoo.com/olympics-ratings-slide-points-toward-new-tv-viewing-reality-152607228.html">media consumption is changing</a>.</p>
<p>No TV programming other than the Olympics assembles <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/05/business/media/nbc-olympics-tv-ratings.html">almost 17 million viewers</a>, every night, for two weeks, as the Tokyo Games did. Even if NBC ends up re-airing ads at no charge to make up for lower-than-expected on-air ratings, network officials <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-30/olympics-ratings-slump-forces-nbc-to-haggle-with-advertisers">remained confident</a> that the Olympics coverage would be profitable. That’s no surprise, as NBC signed up more “premium advertisers” than in 2016 and <a href="https://www.adweek.com/convergent-tv/nbcuniversal-surpasses-rios-1-2-billion-advertising-haul-for-tokyo-olympics/">set a record in advance advertising sales</a>, with US$1.25 billion booked before the torch was lit.</p>
<p>Yet broadcast television comprised only one component of NBC’s distribution mix. The Tokyo Games provided enormous amounts of video content divorced from a single channel. Americans watched on phones, on laptops, through cable partners such as NBC owner Comcast and via streaming apps – as well as on traditional broadcast TV. Viewers shared clips across social media, providing free promotion and clicks, and, though the data is not yet available, it’s likely that <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/peacock-hits-54m-subscribers-amid-tokyo-olympics-1234990045/">many purchased subscriptions</a> directly from NBC’s Peacock TV streaming service. Streaming on the Peacock app showed a <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-30/olympics-ratings-slump-forces-nbc-to-haggle-with-advertisers">24% rise over 2016</a>, and at one point, the app <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/peacock-olympics-nbc-why-so-bad.html">reached its largest audience ever</a>.</p>
<p>With a few rare exceptions, the Olympics have historically been profitable for U.S. broadcasters while giving viewers a glimpse of the future of media. As <a href="https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/36dtk7pp9780252040702.html">my research on Olympic broadcasting</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YxTJsxoAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">has</a> detailed, media innovations that eventually become commonplace are often first introduced at the Games.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415299/original/file-20210809-23-43x7qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A black and white image of a cameraman on a crane above a crowd" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415299/original/file-20210809-23-43x7qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415299/original/file-20210809-23-43x7qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415299/original/file-20210809-23-43x7qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415299/original/file-20210809-23-43x7qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415299/original/file-20210809-23-43x7qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415299/original/file-20210809-23-43x7qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415299/original/file-20210809-23-43x7qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In 1936, cameras transmitted live images of the Olympic Games to viewing rooms elsewhere in the host city of Berlin.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/1936SummerOlympics/914693463ae5da11af9f0014c2589dfb/photo">AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The Olympics and video innovation</h2>
<p>Since 1936, the Olympic Games have demonstrated the future of video distribution. The Berlin Games that year were distributed on the world’s first regularly scheduled television service. Although the images beamed into theaters around Berlin turned out to be largely disappointing due to lighting and technical issues, viewers were amazed at being able to observe an event occurring miles away in real time.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most innovative Olympic broadcast occurred in 1968, when ABC employed several new technologies in Mexico City. Color TV cameras had, until then, been bulky and onerous to use outside a studio, but <a href="https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/Museum/Visit/TOM-Schools/Teaching-Resources/Broadcasting-the-Olympic-Games/FicheInfo_DiffusionJO_TV_ENG.pdf">ABC engineers introduced a new, smaller color camera at the Games</a>.</p>
<p>Perhaps more important, the experimental stage of live intercontinental satellite video relay that had <a href="https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/anniversaries/june/our-world">begun in the early 1960s</a> concluded successfully when the Mexico City Olympics showed it was possible to provide live intercontinental satellite programming over two full weeks of events. The future of watching events, <a href="https://www.teamusa.org/News/2018/October/25/12-Ways-The-Mexico-City-1968-Olympic-Games-Influenced-The-Course-Of-History">in color</a> and beamed from around the planet as they occurred, had arrived.</p>
<p>The broadcasting of the Barcelona Games in 1992 was the <a href="https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_254-romero.pdf">first global TV programming to provide two full signals for every event</a> – one in high definition and one standard. I worked for Radio Televisión Olímpica at the baseball venue that year, and I remember watching Japanese announcers installing specialized HD equipment because NHK, Japan’s Olympic broadcaster, was <a href="https://www.nhk.or.jp/digitalmuseum/nhk50years_en/categories/p58/index.html">the only organization making full use of HDTV</a> in 1992. I recall being dazzled by the clarity of the NHK signal.</p>
<p>NBC first tried selling broadcast service directly to viewers from Barcelona. The package was called “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5eEtjdSZn0">Olympics Triplecast</a>,” and it offered three channels of 24-hour coverage for $29.95 per day, or $125 for the whole two weeks. Olympics Triplecast was <a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-08-10-sp-4894-story.html">widely considered a failure</a>, as U.S. audiences – habituated by decades of free Olympic TV coverage – balked at payment.</p>
<p>With the arrival of subscription streaming, it appears <a href="https://thestreamable.com/news/remembering-the-1992-olympics-triplecast-an-idea-30-years-ahead-of-its-time">Triplecast wasn’t so much a failure as too early</a>. With the collapse of advertising-supported media and the rise of streaming services training audiences to pay for content, it appears the media market has arrived at the place NBC envisioned in 1992.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0Ws_3V7xd1A?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">NBC’s YouTube channel and Peacock app carried huge amounts of Olympics coverage not measured by traditional television ratings.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The audience paradox: Fewer viewers, more profits</h2>
<p>Traditional commercial broadcasting was simple: Higher ratings generally created more advertiser demand, resulting in more expensive commercials and increased profitability. Yet even this basic model was slightly wrong – as scholars have shown, ad agencies and networks always <a href="https://www.fordhampress.com/9780823253715/a-word-from-our-sponsor/">measured audiences by demographic characteristics</a>. Not all viewers were equal, as some programs with smaller audiences commanded higher prices because they moved consumer products more effectively. In general, however, the larger the audience, the higher the price.</p>
<p>But when alternatives – first cable TV, then the web and now social media – began siphoning off viewers, the old model transformed. Ratings declined everywhere, as additional options made concentrating the traditional mass audience for even huge events, like the Academy Awards, more difficult. </p>
<p>[_<a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/politics-weekly-74/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=politics-important">Get The Conversation’s most important politics headlines, in our Politics Weekly newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>An ironic phenomenon then emerged: A few select video spectacles could defy the decline and make more money, even while losing viewers. The Olympics proved the most successful example, as NBC’s ratings from 2012 to 2016 <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/nbcs-ratings-for-rio-olympics-fall-behind-london-1471185907">declined about 15%</a>, yet the 2016 Rio Games produced the network’s <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/24/media/nbc-olympics-ratings-12-billion-rights/index.html">record profit for an Olympics</a>, $250 million. </p>
<p>This seems a paradox: How could smaller audiences lead to more ad revenue? The answer lies in the concept of scarcity, and the evolution of media. With so many options to choose from, programs that are able to assemble mass audiences – even if those audiences are smaller and shrinking – became more valuable precisely because there are so few of them. </p>
<p>That’s how NBC keeps selling the Games so effectively. It knows its primary customers are ad agencies, not viewers. And ad agencies understand the scarcity of the Olympic opportunity.</p>
<p>The other way NBC is generating profitability involves selling Olympic programming directly to viewers. The Olympics now consist of video content, not a television show. Success, for NBC, can’t be accurately measured until the number of paid Peacock TV subscriptions is fully tabulated and the quadrennial bump in adjacent NBC non-Olympic programming is known. The Olympics traditionally lifts everything on the network, from <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/rio-games-generate-week-2-182259334.html">The Today Show to NBC Nightly News</a>. NBC monetizes the Games in ways that many critics don’t seem to consider.</p>
<p>If <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-08/where-to-stream-tokyo-olympics-nbc-s-peacock-hosts-summer-games?sref=W6GJF3MS">paid Peacock TV subscriptions</a> do well, then we’ll all likely remember the Tokyo Games as the evolutionary moment when many Americans first realized they would need to pay up to watch live sports. “<a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2010/03/george_allen_and_the_future_is.html">The future is now</a>” was Hall of Fame NFL coach George Allen’s favorite saying, and when it comes to the economics of live sports programming, the Tokyo Olympics show that we’ve arrived.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/165856/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael J. Socolow does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Olympics are usually profitable for broadcasters and show off the future possibilities of media technologies.Michael J. Socolow, Associate Professor, Communication and Journalism, University of MaineLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1633432021-07-08T18:43:24Z2021-07-08T18:43:24ZMeet Rumble, Canada’s new ‘free speech’ platform — and its impact on the fight against online misinformation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410421/original/file-20210708-17-vmv2rf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=26%2C26%2C8959%2C6197&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Video streaming platform Rumble promotes itself as anti-censorship.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On June 23, the <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2021/06/government-of-canada-takes-action-to-protect-canadians-against-hate-speech-and-hate-crimes.html">Canadian government tabled</a> a bill that would expand existing hate speech policy to better address online hate speech. </p>
<p>Over the coming weeks, the government will consult with the public on devising a regulatory framework around how to make social media platforms more transparent and accountable with their content moderation practices. But the growing popularity of Rumble, a Canadian video-sharing platform championing online free speech, foreshadows a tumultuous road to implementation.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4JuTW5zPV-4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Canada’s attorney general and minister of justice David Lametti announces bill C-36 to deal with online hate speech.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Rumble is a relatively small (compared to YouTube) video-sharing platform that <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/youtube-rival-rumble-growth-ceo">gained over 30 million monthly users almost overnight</a>. Chris Pavlovski, Rumble’s CEO from Brampton, Ont., has <a href="https://www.thestar.com/business/2021/06/11/this-toronto-based-website-surged-to-a-half-billion-dollar-valuation-almost-overnight-thanks-in-part-to-interest-from-conservative-american-investors.html">credited much of the platform’s success to a surge in interest among American conservatives frustrated by big tech’s crackdown on hate speech and misinformation</a>.</p>
<p>Rumble’s lenient approach towards harmful and fallacious speech has attracted the likes of Dan Bongino, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/trump-loyalist-bongino-builds-media-empre/2021/04/19/71afbffa-9858-11eb-962b-78c1d8228819_story.html">the popular American right-wing political pundit known for spewing COVID-19 and 2020 presidential election conspiracy theories</a>. </p>
<p>Another right-wing American political commentator, Dinesh D'Souza, has also acquired a large audience on the platform. D'Souza’s political commentary includes racist and conspiracy-driven content, such as attributing the 9/11 attacks to “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/us/politics/dinesh-dsouza-facts-history.html">the cultural left</a>.”</p>
<h2>Recommended misinformation</h2>
<p>Rumble doesn’t just accept harmful content, it amplifies it. Journalists reviewing the platform’s recommendation system found that <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/rumble-sends-viewers-tumbling-toward-misinformation/">if a person were to search the term “vaccine” on Rumble, they would be three times more likely to be recommended videos containing COVID-19 misinformation than accurate information</a>.</p>
<p>Rumble launched in 2013 with the goal of creating a video-sharing platform that could compete with YouTube. Pavlovski’s goal was initially too risky for investors, but the <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-toronto-content-sharing-site-favoured-by-us-right-wingers-draws/">growing animosity towards big tech sparked new interest in the alternative streaming service</a>.</p>
<p>Pavlovski recently received investments from Silicon Valley’s leading conservative billionaires, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-j-d-vance-invest-in-rumble-video-platform-popular-on-political-right-11621447661">including author J.D. Vance, venture capitalist Peter Theil and former Trump adviser Darren Blanton</a>. </p>
<p>Pavlovski said that he never intended for Rumble to become a conservative hotspot. Rather, Rumble was developed for “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou4fgN6IahQ">dedicated content creators who are being stifled elsewhere</a>.”</p>
<h2>Content without censorship</h2>
<p>Pavlovski has described Rumble as different from YouTube and Facebook because it uses far fewer algorithms for recommending and reviewing content. It’s promoted as a streaming service where creators can gain exposure without fear of suppression or censorship.</p>
<p>On Rumble, <a href="https://fortune.com/2020/11/30/rumble-video-service-youtube-rival-popular-among-conservatives/">videos are displayed in chronological order to users based on who they follow on the platform</a>. Algorithms are not used to filter high risk video content; video content is subject to human review. Algorithms are mainly involved when “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou4fgN6IahQ">trying to figure out which videos are viral and which videos we need to put humans on to look at to distribute</a>” Pavlovski explains.</p>
<p>Rumble also has a more lenient approach to content moderation. Users are prohibited from posting videos that include illegal activities such as pornography, child exploitation or harassment. However, videos claiming election fraud and coronavirus conspiracies remain permissible on the streaming platform.</p>
<p>Pavlovski has remarked that “<a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/youtube-to-remove-content-alleging-widespread-fraud-or-errors">Rumble will never censor political discussion, opinion or act like the arbiters of truth</a>.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1409580456505450501"}"></div></p>
<h2>Neutral platforms</h2>
<p>Pavlovski’s criticism of big tech’s reliance on AI to amplify certain content over others is not unfounded. National governments are increasingly concerned by <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/diversity-content-digital-age/analysis-local-national-content.html">how the discoverability of content impacts their local creators</a>.</p>
<p>In addition, new research indicates that <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i12.10266">deplatforming malicious content creators can lead them to alternative platforms that are more difficult to control</a>. However, Pavlovski’s claims should be taken with a grain of salt. </p>
<p>Tarleton Gillespie, a principal researcher at Microsoft Research New England, argues that <a href="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300173130/custodians-internet">the notion of neutrality advocated by platforms is a mere distraction</a>. The same can be said of Rumble.</p>
<p>“My goal is to keep it as fair as possible. We’re not interested in taking any position on any type of content, we just want to be a platform, and I believe that’s why we’ve seen so much growth,” Pavlovski said <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/youtube-rival-rumble-growth-ceo">in an interview with FOX Business</a>, adding that the company has “stuck to our core policies we started with in 2013.”</p>
<p>The streaming service may list its content in chronological order, but it is not a mere conduit for information. Rumble still tags, categorizes and sorts content; selects which content is <a href="https://rumble.com/category/viral">trending or viral</a>; and determines which content to <a href="https://rumble.com/license-videos">license and distribute</a>. These practices are integral to the service’s business model. </p>
<p>Marketing Rumble as a champion of free speech is strategic because it helps the video-sharing platform evade liability for the content appearing on its website. However, <a href="https://friends.ca/workspace/uploads/documents/platform-for-harm-2020-friends.pdf">a platform that promotes content via algorithmic manipulation and/or receives notice of unlawful content, is arguably a “publisher” according to Canadian common law</a> and, therefore, liable for harmful content appearing on its platform.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/parler-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-free-speech-twitter-alternative-142268">Parler: what you need to know about the 'free speech' Twitter alternative</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>To combat online misinformation, platforms like Rumble, YouTube and Facebook must be more transparent about how their algorithms organize and promote content. Disclosing substantial information about their content moderation practices is key to enabling accountability, public trust and democratic deliberation. </p>
<p>Whether the Liberals will be successful in implementing the new bill and enforcing transparency among platforms remains to be seen. In the meantime, “free speech” platforms like Rumble will continue to attract users frustrated by the content moderation practices of incumbent platforms.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/163343/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fizza Kulvi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Rumble is a Canadian video-streaming platform that presents itself as an alternative to YouTube. Because Rumble does not censor content, right wing conspiracy theories have proliferated on the site.Fizza Kulvi, PhD Candidate in Communication Policy, McMaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1621582021-06-08T17:15:18Z2021-06-08T17:15:18ZWill Amazon’s purchase of MGM mark the end of Netflix’s reign?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/404583/original/file-20210604-27-jtkpbw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C994%2C529&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In buying MGM, Amazon is clearly demonstrating its ambition to dethrone Netflix and the race for the top spot in the video-on-demand market has never been tighter.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The ruthless war between the world’s leading video-on-demand companies reached a climax when the Amazon acquired the legendary Hollywood studio MGM (Metro Goldwyn Mayer) in a deal worth US$8.45 billion.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/26/22441644/amazon-mgm-acquisition-prime-video-subscription-service-james-bond">The sale of MGM</a> on May 26 followed more than six months of negotiations. The American studio known for its roaring lion had been weakened by major financial difficulties before the pandemic. The prolonged closure of movie theatres was the final nail in its coffin.</p>
<p>Although the MGM studio had a low market value (estimated at only US$5.5 billion a few months ago), several giants of the digital industry, including Apple, were interested in buying it. But it was Amazon that won the bid and made history by becoming the first player in the video streaming industry to acquire a major Hollywood studio.</p>
<p>In buying MGM, Amazon is clearly demonstrating its ambition to dethrone Netflix. The Prime Video service already has nearly 200 million users, which puts it close to its Californian competitor with 208 million subscribers. The race for the top spot in the video-on-demand market has never been tighter.</p>
<p>As part of my research on <a href="https://www.decouvrabilite-francophonie.net/">discoverability</a> and access to <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/diversity-content-digital-age/analysis-local-national-content.html">diversity in online content</a>, I regularly monitor the transformations and imbalances that are being brought on by the digital distribution platforms that control the global market for cultural goods and services.</p>
<h2>Amazon takes the lion’s share!</h2>
<p>In this age of multi-platform consumption, the most effective way for a company to stand out and attract audiences constantly searching for novelty and diversity is to regularly expand and renew its catalogue. In the war the different platforms are waging against each other to secure exclusive content, the ability to invest in the acquisition or production of original content has become crucial ammunition.</p>
<p>A platform that cannot offer enough new content quickly to gain and retain subscribers will not be able to compete with its competitors. The <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-would-add-james-bond-content-depth-in-expected-mgm-deal-11621980972"><em>Wall Street Journal</em></a> speculated that the acquisition of MGM was a sign that Amazon was having difficulty producing enough content to satisfy the demand of its Prime Video subscribers.</p>
<p>In the <a href="https://cmf-fmc.ca/now-next/articles/the-internet-the-worlds-biggest-video-store/">gigantic video club</a> that the internet has become, players cannot rely solely on the quality of their catalogue <a href="https://www.techradar.com/news/apple-tv-plus-is-betting-on-quality-over-quantity-for-its-shows">the way Apple does</a> with the Apple TV+ service. In the eyes of subscribers, the number of titles available is as important, or even more important, than the quality of the content being offered.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="MGM's logo with the roaring lion" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/403236/original/file-20210527-17-ai413a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/403236/original/file-20210527-17-ai413a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/403236/original/file-20210527-17-ai413a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/403236/original/file-20210527-17-ai413a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/403236/original/file-20210527-17-ai413a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/403236/original/file-20210527-17-ai413a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/403236/original/file-20210527-17-ai413a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">MGM Studios’ catalogue contains cinematic works that have won more than 180 Oscars and 100 Emmys.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Amazon has acquired a veritable treasure trove to enrich its catalogue, having obtained the exclusive intellectual property of 4,000 feature films, including <em>The Silence of the Lambs</em>, <em>The Hobbit</em>, <em>The Wizard of Oz</em>, <em>Rocky</em>, <em>Terminator</em>, <em>The Pink Panther</em> and the entire <em>James Bond</em> collection. To add to that, there are about 17,000 MGM television programs, including popular series like <em>Stargate</em>, <em>Vikings</em> and <em>The Handmaid’s Tale</em>. This catalogue includes <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/amazons-8-45b-mgm-deal-includes-icons-like-the-james-bond-movies-and-the-film-thelma-louise-11622038088">cinematographic works</a> that have won more than 180 Oscars and 100 Emmys.</p>
<p>For that matter, the exponential growth of revenues generated by e-commerce and cloud services during the pandemic allowed Amazon to <a href="https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-health-coronavirus-technology-business-16a950ba630045281458500081d562e6">triple its profits</a> in 2020, when the company saw a 44 per cent increase in revenue over the year.</p>
<p>This has left the company with a very comfortable profit margin of nearly US$11 billion that it can invest in producing original content. That will allow Amazon to increase its offerings by nearly 40 per cent over the previous year. It has also invested nearly US$465 million in the first season of the <em>Lord of the Rings</em> series, considered the most expensive series in the history of television.</p>
<h2>Redrawing the audiovisual landscape</h2>
<p>While <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-03-18/streaming-milestone-global-subscriptions-passed-1-billion-last-year-mpa-theme-report">forecasts</a> anticipated the number of subscriptions to video-on-demand services would reach nearly one billion worldwide by 2019, demand for these services once again boomed during the pandemic.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.csa.fr/Informer/Collections-du-CSA/Thema-Toutes-les-etudes-realisees-ou-co-realisees-par-le-CSA-sur-des-themes-specifiques/Les-etudes-corealisees-avec-le-CSA/Etude-Hadopi-CSA-La-multiplication-des-services-de-video-a-la-demande-par-abonnement">A recent study</a> by France’s Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel concluded that the market is now structured around a few global digital players who are all stepping up their investment in local production. As a result, these players are pushing the historically dominant players to change their own differentiation strategies through ambitious takeovers or mergers, editorial positioning, aggregation of exclusive content and by expanding their offer.</p>
<p>The dramatic increase of new content is also confronting players with the challenge of catering to a new type of consumer (including a high proportion of young people) who regularly subscribes and unsubscribes from one audiovisual service in order to test others.</p>
<p>To be able to compete with digital giants, which have gone from being simple distributors and broadcasters to content producers, Hollywood’s major studios now have to be agile and rethink their business models.</p>
<h2>The race for subscribers</h2>
<p>MGM was one of the last pioneers in American film production not to have partnered with an online video platform or to have created its own video-on-demand service.</p>
<p>In contrast, <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/20/18273142/disney-fox-acquistion-final-hulu-marvel-streaming-21st-century">Disney acquired 21st Century Fox</a> in March 2019 and got its hands on the Hulu platform even before launching its own Disney+ service. The latter passed the 100 million subscribers mark in one year with a catalogue that was enriched with content from Fox, Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm Studios.</p>
<p>Another example: after purchasing the conglomerate Warner Media in 2018 and launching its HBO Max platform in May 2020, the <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-16/at-t-is-said-in-talks-to-combine-content-assets-with-discovery-kor6r2uj">telecommunications giant AT&T has just decided to merge its activities with Discovery</a>. This will allow it to invest more in original content and offer viewers more choices and new types of video experiences.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A young woman at her computer looks at the Netflix menu to choose a movie" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/403237/original/file-20210527-20-1ahcyum.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/403237/original/file-20210527-20-1ahcyum.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/403237/original/file-20210527-20-1ahcyum.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/403237/original/file-20210527-20-1ahcyum.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/403237/original/file-20210527-20-1ahcyum.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/403237/original/file-20210527-20-1ahcyum.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/403237/original/file-20210527-20-1ahcyum.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What’s next for Netflix? There are rumours that the platform is interested in entering the video game market.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Amazon’s aggressive strategy is enough to make Netflix shake in its boots: Netflix’s number of <a href="https://fr.statista.com/infographie/24678/nombre-de-nouveaux-abonnes-payants-de-netflix-par-trimestre-et-par-region/">new subscribers is decreasing</a> because of insufficient content renewal and saturation in certain markets (especially in the United States and Canada).</p>
<p>At the same time, by purchasing MGM and acquiring its rich catalogue of movies, Amazon is assured that its Prime Video subscriber numbers will skyrocket in the coming months or years. Amazon could also prevent its main rivals (Netflix, Disney+, HBO Max, Apple TV+) from exploiting the exclusively licensed content in its new catalogue.</p>
<h2>Netflix is preparing its response</h2>
<p>In order to maintain its leadership position, Netflix will have to accelerate its growth in <a href="https://www.jeuneafrique.com/1114880/culture/netflix-lorgne-lafrique-francophone/">promising markets such as French-speaking Africa</a> and diversify its services by offering new content. The multinational <a href="https://www.protocol.com/netflix-survey-nplus-show-playlists">recently surveyed some of its users</a> about a new platform called N-Plus, which could offer the features of a social network (with reviews and comments that can be shared with friends or the community), combined with a news site that could include podcasts, personalized playlists and information on upcoming productions.</p>
<p>There are also rumours that Netflix has ambitious plans to enter the <a href="https://www.futura-sciences.com/tech/actualites/jeux-video-jeux-video-nouveau-grand-chantier-netflix-87587/">video game market</a> and is considering launching a service to compete with Apple Arcade by 2022.</p>
<p>By going beyond its core business to position itself in the video game industry, Netflix would be taking a measured risk. The move would allow it to offer interactive entertainment with content that mixes fiction and video games so it can engage users and attract new audiences.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162158/count.gif" alt="La Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tchéhouali Destiny ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.</span></em></p>In the war to secure exclusive content, the ability to invest in the acquisition or production of original content has become crucial ammunition.Tchéhouali Destiny, Professeur en communication internationale, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1430692020-08-19T12:19:33Z2020-08-19T12:19:33ZA little-known technology change will make video streaming cheaper and pave the way for higher quality<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eOF05j0H56Y?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A short summary of how the H.266 standards can improve the video streaming experience.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A new format for compressing video, called Versatile Video Coding (H.266/VVC), at first glance might not seem to be the most exciting or profound change to influence humanity. But in a world where <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-population-worldwide/">4.57 billion</a> people identify as active internet users, <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/">3.5 billion</a> regularly use a smartphone, <a href="https://www.lightreading.com/optical-ip/what-did-the-world-do-during-quarantine-watch-more-youtube/d/d-id/759490">80% of global internet traffic</a> is compressed video data and <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/259477/hours-of-video-uploaded-to-youtube-every-minute/">500 hours of video</a> are uploaded to YouTube every minute, data is more than binary numbers. Data – and video specifically – is now part of humanity’s collective nervous system.</p>
<p>COVID-19 has greatly increased internet usage around the world. It now has the dual purpose of keeping parents and kids connected for both work and school through video conferencing. Further, families are now <a href="https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/technology/digital-media-trends-consumption-habits-survey/video-streaming-wars-redrawing-battle-lines.html">regular users</a> of a growing array of streaming providers like Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, Prime Video, Peacock and HBOMax.</p>
<p>A 50% reduction in video file size is a big deal for humanity’s collective knowledge in our new digital economy. And size reduction of video files is just one win associated with switching. </p>
<p>The new <a href="https://newsletter.fraunhofer.de/-viewonline2/17386/465/11/14SHcBTt/V44RELLZBp/1">H.266/VVC</a> codec – the program that prepares video for streaming over internet – presents a massive change that will result in video load times becoming shorter, video resolution becoming greater and internet providers having more bandwidth available. Most importantly, cost for data usage will decrease, which will help to reduce disparities of access to digital content for a global consumer. The creator of this new codec, Fraunhofer Heinrich Institute in Berlin, Germany, claims that the first software to support H.266/VVC will be published in <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/7/21316525/fraunhofer-vvc-video-codec-streaming-4k-video-cost-file-size-standards">fall 2020</a>.</p>
<h2>What is a codec?</h2>
<p>Codec stands for compressor/decompressor. Codecs are what allow streaming media to be universally readable by computers. They have two specific components: One is the encoder that compresses the files and makes the lights and sound turn into a digital format a computer can read, and the other is a decoder that then decompresses or reads the file and plays back as originally captured. </p>
<p>The new H.266/VVC codec stands on the shoulders of two earlier predecessors with equally attractive names: H.264 (AVC) and H.265 (HEVC). </p>
<p>H.264 (AVC) compression, which was created in 2003, has been the gold standard for video compression and still plays a dominant role in online video. However, it works best for the older high-definition HD (1920x1080) video formats. Eventually, H.264 was even employed to create things never initially intended, like newer 4k (2160x3840) video files, but many websites blocked them because they were difficult to process. </p>
<p>A new codec that efficiently manages large file sizes was needed.<br>
H.265 (HEVC) launched in 2013 and was tooled toward 4k video compression, but never caught on like its predecessor. From early on, the H.265 codec created massive turbulence for technology company legal departments due to licensing issues, and the wrinkles were never clearly ironed out for mass use. Because of this, many might feel in some ways we are leaping from a H.264 (AVC) world directly into the future with H.266/VVC.</p>
<h2>What does H.266/VVC do differently?</h2>
<p>H.266/VVC has its focus on extremely high-resolution video, which is imperative in a world that is continually evolving toward bigger, better and more detail. This codec is beneficial now with the widespread proliferation of 4k video and TVs. It will be even more imperative as resolution increases to 8k and beyond. Recently, a new <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/17/21328096/blackmagic-ursa-mini-pro-12k-announced-price-release-date">12k</a> video camera was released that, again, puts more focus and importance on strong compression that H.266/VVC provides.</p>
<p>Perhaps learning from the more turbulent licensing of its predecessor H.265 (HEVC), the Fraunhofer Institute, which is licensing the technology, now takes a uniform and transparent licensing model based on the FRAND principle (fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory). This FRAND directive has front and center the idea that to build up a new widely adopted codec for universal adoption around the globe, equitable access for all is key. </p>
<p>How well H.266/VVC will be adopted by technology leaders is still to be seen. However, as of now, <a href="https://petapixel.com/2020/07/07/h-266-codec-unveiled-same-quality-half-the-file-size/">over 30 companies</a> have joined the Media Coding Industry Forum that was created for equitable access to the technology. </p>
<p>As a media and communication scholar who wants to reduce global disparities, I see the arrival of the H.266/VVC technology as an important step toward our media-saturated world becoming more inclusive. I am hopeful that something as unassuming as adopting a new video codec will actually make significant changes to creating more equitable access to digital content globally. After all, the more perspectives we add to any conversation, the more informed we all become.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/143069/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason Schmitt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A new standard for how videos are sent through the internet and read by your computer could make the digital world more inclusive, says media scholar Jason Schmitt.Jason Schmitt, Professor and Chair, Department of Communication, Media & Design, Clarkson UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1356412020-04-12T20:06:02Z2020-04-12T20:06:02ZThe coronavirus lockdown is forcing us to view ‘screen time’ differently. That’s a good thing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/327413/original/file-20200412-113939-kkynhc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=293%2C0%2C4412%2C3049&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>“How would we have coped before the internet?” is a quandary likely posed by someone you know. </p>
<p>Beyond being a whimsical hypothetical, this question is relevant at a time when the digital age is ridiculed as the end of social skills as we know them. COVID-19 has seen society pivot, almost overnight, from real world interactions to the online space. </p>
<p>We have gone from mingling with colleagues, classmates and friends to being <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-health-alert/how-to-protect-yourself-and-others-from-coronavirus-covid-19/social-distancing-for-coronavirus-covid-19">told</a> to move our social interactions safely behind a webcam and sanitised keyboard. Internet providers and servers around the globe are being <a href="https://www.zdnet.com/article/aussie-telco-heavyweights-create-group-to-handle-covid-19-network-surge/">pushed to the limit</a> as kitchen tables become boardrooms and laps become school desks. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-boost-your-internet-speed-when-everyone-is-working-from-home-135313">How to boost your internet speed when everyone is working from home</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Thus, it is cause to reframe our <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/year-in-review-tech-addiction-debate-all-wrong/">views on screen time</a> – an activity that consumes, now more than ever, a significant proportion of our day.</p>
<h2>COVID-19’s impact on screen time</h2>
<p>With more than 90% of Australians having a <a href="https://www2.deloitte.com/au/mobile-consumer-survey">smartphone</a>, our often pilloried devices are now more essential to daily life than ever. As people fulfil their civic duty by staying home, platforms and internet providers are facing an unprecedented surge in online activity. </p>
<p>Australia’s National Broadband Network (NBN) has seen a daytime usage increase of 70-80%, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-01/coronavirus-internet-speeds-covid19-affects-data-downloads/12107334">compared to figures in February</a>. </p>
<p>Demand for streaming sites across the globe has intensified, with Amazon and Netflix having to reduce video quality in some countries to handle the <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-20/amazon-netflix-cut-europe-s-stream-quality-to-ease-networks">strain</a>.</p>
<p>In March, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/18/zoom-cfo-explains-how-the-company-is-grappling-with-increased-demand.html">Zoom</a> knocked Facebook and Netflix down the Apple and Google mobile app store rankings in the US, as people sought video chat options. </p>
<p>Social media and video/online gaming <a href="https://www.alistdaily.com/social/coronavirus-social-media-increase/">are also flourishing</a>.</p>
<p>If we’re to take anything away from the significant increase in screen time caused by this pandemic, it is that human connection in the digital age comes in many forms. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/time-well-spent-not-wasted-video-games-are-boosting-well-being-during-the-coronavirus-lockdown-135642">Time well spent, not wasted: video games are boosting well-being during the coronavirus lockdown</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Think of screen time as calories</h2>
<p>We must acknowledge the umbrella term “screen time” can denote both positive and negative interactions with technology. </p>
<p>Think of screen time as consuming calories. All humans require calories to function. This unit of energy provides nutritional information relating to the contents of a food item, such as chocolate bar, or a carrot.</p>
<p>Whereas both foods contain calories, we know the carrot is a healthier source. While professionals might offer advice about which provides the most beneficial nutrition, the individual should still have agency over what they consume. </p>
<p>Similarly, people should be able to choose to partake in online activities not normally deemed “productive” – but which may help them through their day.
Like calories, screen time is about moderation, making responsible choices and exercising <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-44085-010">self-control</a>.</p>
<h2>Lockdown and locked screens</h2>
<p>Just as there are good and bad calories, so too exist good and bad examples of screen time. It is therefore not helpful to use <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/14/health/screen-time-rename-parenting-house-wellness-strauss/index.html">the overarching term “screen time”</a> when discussing how technology use should be moderated. </p>
<p>An hour spent researching for an assignment is not tantamount to an hour spent watching cat videos, as the former is <a href="https://www.education.com/slideshow/screen-time-improve-learning/">contributing to learning</a>. </p>
<p>Also, an hour on social media chatting with friends is productive if it allows you to socialise at a time when <a href="https://www.lifeline.org.au/get-help/topics/mental-health-and-wellbeing-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-outbreak">important social interactions</a> can’t otherwise take place (such as during lockdown). In this way, the current pandemic is not only helping shift our views on screen time – but has subtly rewritten them, too.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/326386/original/file-20200408-193245-jy7si1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=125%2C80%2C5865%2C3907&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/326386/original/file-20200408-193245-jy7si1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=125%2C80%2C5865%2C3907&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/326386/original/file-20200408-193245-jy7si1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/326386/original/file-20200408-193245-jy7si1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/326386/original/file-20200408-193245-jy7si1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/326386/original/file-20200408-193245-jy7si1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/326386/original/file-20200408-193245-jy7si1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/326386/original/file-20200408-193245-jy7si1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The coronavirus crisis may be an exercise in self-control for many of us, as we reach for our smartphones to bide idle time.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/portrait-happy-30s-aged-asian-man-1688370856">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Screen time does not necessarily need to be objectively “beneficial”, nor does it need to have arbitrary time limits associated with it to prevent it from being detrimental. </p>
<p>Appropriate use is contextual. This fact should determine how parents, teachers and policymakers moderate its use, as opposed to mandating a certain number of hours per day, and not specifying how these hours should be spent.</p>
<p>We must steer clear of blanket statements when it comes to critiquing screen time. Our digital diets vary significantly, just as our real diets do. Consequently, screen time should be approached with a level of flexibility.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/does-social-media-make-us-more-or-less-lonely-depends-on-how-you-use-it-128468">Does social media make us more or less lonely? Depends on how you use it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Fear fuels stigma</h2>
<p>Some of the <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/11/17/screen-time-increases-teen-depression-thoughts-suicide-research-suggests/874073001/">derision</a> and <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/">concern</a> associated with time spent on digital devices can be attributed to a fear of the new. </p>
<p>Swiss scientist Conrad Gessner was among the first to raise alarm over information overload, claiming an overabundance of data was “<a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=cRgwAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT169&lpg=PT169&dq=confusing+and+harmful+gessner&source=bl&ots=h2wFyfZK6i&sig=ACfU3U1_IRqrk53ADjhv__wjdnDzaCMUOw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjgo_eB5NDoAhVN73MBHfgTAWkQ6AEwCXoECAoQJw#v=onepage&q=confusing%20and%20harmful%20gessner&f=false">confusing and harmful</a>” to the mind. If you’re not familiar with Gessner’s theory, it may be because he exclaimed it <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/fear-not-technology-isnt-actually-making-us-dumber-20161221-gtftjd.html">back in 1565</a>, in response to the printing press. </p>
<p>Gessner’s warnings referred to the seemingly unmanageable flood of information unleashed by <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/printing-press">Johannes Gutenberg’s contraption</a>. Fear of the new has permeated the debate on emerging technologies for generations. </p>
<p>And Gessner is not alone. From the New York Times warning in the late 1800s the telephone would <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=0EsUPuoS6_AC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=We+will+soon+be+nothing+but+transparent+heaps+of+jelly+to+each+other++new+york+times&source=bl&ots=Ou6n3usOJG&sig=0a0uu7fgOfFEK0k4XYpa3w8fzWY&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=heaps%20of%20jelly&f=false">invade our privacy</a>, to concerns in the 1970s the rapid pacing of children’s shows such as Sesame Street led to <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-06148-013">distractibility</a> – it is <a href="https://neuroleadership.com/portfolio-items/handbook-of-neuroleadership/">inherent human behaviour</a> to be cautious about what we don’t fully understand. </p>
<p>Yet, many of these proclamations seem almost absurd in retrospect. What will later generations look back upon as statements fuelled by paranoia and fear, just because a new technology had disrupted the status quo?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/135641/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr Karl Sebire does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As the pandemic moves us indoors, it’s time to reconsider our understanding of ‘screen time’ – especially since we’re relying on our devices now more than ever.Dr Karl Sebire, Researcher (Technology and education), University of New EnglandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1253602019-11-08T12:14:20Z2019-11-08T12:14:20ZApple, Disney and Netflix’s streaming battle isn’t winner-take-all<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300712/original/file-20191107-10915-18agxtl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Apple TV Plus has focused on recruiting big names for its shows.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Tony Avelar</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With the <a href="https://www.techradar.com/news/apple-tv-plus-cost-review-and-everything-you-need-to-know">recent launch of Apple TV Plus</a> and the imminent arrival of Disney Plus, the video landscape has never looked so competitive. </p>
<p>These services join a crowded marketplace of subscription streaming services that includes Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime Video – with <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/25/20727317/nbc-universal-streaming-service-launch-date-2020-comcast">more to come</a> next year. For viewers, the proliferation of services means more choice in shows and services. For the companies, it means increased competition for talent and escalating budgets. </p>
<p>Although <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/afm-streaming-wars-loom-large-as-market-gets-underway-1252706">many</a> <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/18/media/streaming-wars-scorecard/index.html">publications</a> <a href="https://www.theverge.com/streaming-wars">have</a> <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/disney-rollout-shows-streaming-wars-are-over-viewers-lost-ncna1067276">described</a> the situation as “<a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2019-10-10/streaming-wars-winners-and-losers-disney-plus-netflix-hbo-max-peacock-quibi-apple-tv">streaming wars</a>,” these companies have different goals for each of their video services.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.amandalotz.com">We have</a> <a href="http://opensquare.nyupress.org/books/9781479804948/">been studying</a> the recent <a href="https://global-internet-tv.com/">boom</a> in subscription video streaming to understand the implications for audiences and industry. Contrary to all this reporting, we find little evidence of a “streaming war.” </p>
<p>In fact, many of these services are playing different games.</p>
<h2>Diverse strategies</h2>
<p>The major streaming services – both old and new – all have different catalogs, pricing and strategies. While all services seek viewers’ time and attention, in other respects they are different beasts.</p>
<p>Take <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/disney-plus-streaming-service-launch-release-dates-prices-preorders-shows-movies-deals/">Disney Plus</a>. Disney’s strong suit is kids, family and its popular Marvel and “Star Wars” content. It has also invested in a few original series such as “The Mandalorian,” a “Star Wars” spin-off. </p>
<p>But unlike Netflix, Disney Plus doesn’t offer a full-service entertainment package. With its lowball pricing of US$7 per month compared with $13 for Netflix’s most popular plan, Disney Plus is pitched as a service to have alongside Netflix, rather than a direct replacement.</p>
<p>Similarly, <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-tv-plus-launch-date-price-shows-movies-films-to-expect/">Apple TV Plus</a> – which debuted on Nov. 1 for $4.99 a month – has a tiny catalog of high-profile shows and stars, such as Oprah and Jennifer Aniston. Compared with Netflix’s library of <a href="http://unogs.com/countrydetail/">5,000 titles</a>, Apple TV Plus is a minnow. Its purpose is to add value and glamour to Apple device purchases not to replace another service.</p>
<p>In other words, neither Disney Plus nor Apple TV Plus is likely to be a “<a href="https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/can-apple-tv-plus-be-a-netflix-killer-14908038">Netflix killer</a>” anytime soon. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300759/original/file-20191107-10924-1j82kmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300759/original/file-20191107-10924-1j82kmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300759/original/file-20191107-10924-1j82kmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300759/original/file-20191107-10924-1j82kmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300759/original/file-20191107-10924-1j82kmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300759/original/file-20191107-10924-1j82kmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300759/original/file-20191107-10924-1j82kmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The growing number of streaming services can co-exist.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Manuel Esteban/Shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Netflix is global</h2>
<p>Another key difference between Netflix and services such as Disney Plus, Hulu and Apple TV Plus is the amount of global content in the former’s library. </p>
<p>Today, <a href="https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/netflix-subscriber-peak-us-pwc-report-1203234190/">six out of every seven</a> new Netflix subscribers live outside the U.S. The <a href="https://www.salon.com/2017/04/11/the-unique-strategy-netflix-deployed-to-reach-90-million-worldwide-subscribers_partner/">global market</a> is essential for Netflix’s future growth. </p>
<p>To support this endeavor, it is spending considerably on producing shows outside the U.S., and this original content is available to subscribers worldwide. Of course not every viewer is interested in series produced elsewhere, but Netflix is making the bet that sci-fi fans will turn up for a good adventure whether it is produced in the U.S. or Brazil.</p>
<p>In contrast, Disney and Apple are following a more traditional U.S. export model of media globalization. </p>
<h2>Room for other players?</h2>
<p>Many questions remain about the future of <a href="https://www.digitaltrends.com/movies/how-does-hulu-work/">Hulu</a> now that its owners – Disney and Comcast – are launching other services.</p>
<p>Hulu provides a distinct service as a source of current series produced for Disney and NBC. Viewers that are cutting cable and satellite service – a trend that has <a href="https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/cord-cuttings-growth-has-more-than-tripled-in-2019/">increased</a> in the last year – may find Hulu a good replacement.</p>
<p>And more change is coming. Comcast announced a service called Peacock for next year. Peacock will draw heavily from the library of shows Comcast owns as the corporate parent of NBC and Universal. It will be free to Comcast subscribers and <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2019/11/01/nbc-peacock-free-report/?guccounter=1">possibly to everyone</a>.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, AT&T will launch <a href="https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/what-is-hbo-max/">HBO Max</a> – the new direct-to-consumer portal for HBO content, some original series and titles from the Warner Bros. library such as “Friends.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300758/original/file-20191107-10915-ptqa4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/300758/original/file-20191107-10915-ptqa4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300758/original/file-20191107-10915-ptqa4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300758/original/file-20191107-10915-ptqa4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300758/original/file-20191107-10915-ptqa4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300758/original/file-20191107-10915-ptqa4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/300758/original/file-20191107-10915-ptqa4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Disney can use data collected from its streaming service for other purposes, such as driving people to the theaters to watch ‘Frozen 2.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photo by Arthur Mola/Invision/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What winning means</h2>
<p>In other words, the question of who will “win” the streaming war is more complicated than it appears. </p>
<p>Rather than one service to rule them all, there may be many winners because most are playing different games. Netflix is the only “pure” subscription video-on-demand service – meaning its only business is streaming video. It wins when viewers subscribe or keep subscribing. Apple and Amazon are playing another game entirely. Apple wins if you buy a new iPhone, and Amazon wins if you start buying more from its online retail service. Similarly, Comcast and AT&T are likely angling to increase internet subscribers.</p>
<p>Disney also wants viewers to pay to subscribe, but it has other ambitions too. Launching its own streaming service allows Disney to collect valuable data about who is watching and what they like. This kind of data is useful for driving viewers to theaters as Elsa and Anna return in “Frozen 2” and enticing families to buy lots of stuffed toys and maybe even visit its theme parks. </p>
<p>In other words, this is not a single war so much as a collection of different media and technology businesses that are using video streaming to accomplish different goals. </p>
<p>[ <em>Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklybest">Sign up for our weekly newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/125360/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Lotz receives funding from the Australian Research Council Discovery programme (DP190100978).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ramon Lobato receives funding from the Australian Research Council Discovery programme (DP190100978).</span></em></p>Although some have dubbed the flurry of new video services coming out as a ‘streaming war,’ the reality is very different.Amanda Lotz, Professor of Media Studies, Queensland University of TechnologyRamon Lobato, Senior research fellow, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1238282019-10-14T12:32:00Z2019-10-14T12:32:00ZNetflix is losing shows to rivals – will the music streaming market also splinter?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296874/original/file-20191014-135505-1ncgzeo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/aachen-germany-september-10-2019-video-1501425782?src=cFOKA76ZlRv3NfHO1wXAvA-1-2">Alexander Kirch/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Netflix is <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/friends-officially-leaving-netflix-warnermedias-streaming-service-1223151">losing Friends</a>. From 2020, viewers in the US will have to subscribe to the new WarnerMedia streaming service HBO Max to watch the 90s sitcom that until now has been one of the most popular shows on Netflix (the UK and other regions won’t be affected).</p>
<p>It is part of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jun/27/streaming-tv-is-about-to-get-very-expensive-heres-why">a splintering</a> of the streaming market that will see studios such as Disney as well as technology firms such as Apple launch their own Netflix rivals, dividing up popular content between them. Instead of being able to watch most of your favourite TV shows and films on one or two services, you may have to subscribe to several, or else miss out on content. </p>
<p>Is something similar now likely to happen in other media categories such as music? Our research suggests that proponents and early adopters of streaming services need not panic. In <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0008125618818841">a paper</a> we coauthored with Morgane Evenou (now a manager at Netflix), we found that the streaming business has a “winner-takes-all” dynamic that should eventually produce a small number of players dominating each media category. This means that in the long term, and for most consumers, a few dominant services should provide convenient and reliable access to most content.</p>
<p>However, the long-term situation we envisage has not yet arrived, as we are starkly reminded by the current upheaval in the video streaming market. Netflix is not only losing Friends <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/17/20694711/netflix-friends-the-office-earnings-q2-2019-subscribers-disney-hbo-apple-amazon-stock-drop">but subscribers</a> – 130,000 of them in the last quarter in the US, where market fragmentation is at its strongest.</p>
<h2>The music model</h2>
<p>Convenient and reliable streaming isn’t yet the standard way to access most media content, except for music, as most popular artists are available on most commercial services. This exception reflects the fact that different media industries are in different stages of their digital lifecycle. The music industry was among the first to experience <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/">substantial upheaval</a> in the 2000s due to online piracy. This challenge spurred innovative commercial responses that evolved to become the currently dominant <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/apr/24/weve-got-more-money-swirling-around-how-streaming-saved-the-music-industry">streaming model</a>, through services such as Spotify and YouTube. Listeners have benefited, enjoying access to large catalogues, few geographical restrictions and the ability to listen to music offline.</p>
<p>But it took many years for digital music services to offer this combination of features, and to identify <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher_Cayari/publication/234579002_The_YouTube_Effect_How_YouTube_Has_Provided_New_Ways_to_Consume_Create_and_Share_Music/links/5a33e2c345851532e82c933b/The-YouTube-Effect-How-YouTube-Has-Provided-New-Ways-to-Consume-Create-and-Share-Music.pdf">ways to create value</a> for subscribers such as personalised music recommendations and community features such as playlists. </p>
<p>Film and TV, meanwhile is in an earlier phase of this digital lifecycle. Books are increasingly distributed digitally but subscription services such as Kindle Unlimited or Scribd still represent a small share of the market. And video game streaming is still <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/games/2019/jul/26/video-game-streaming-is-it-worth-it">in its infancy</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296870/original/file-20191014-135501-1u7w8sr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296870/original/file-20191014-135501-1u7w8sr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296870/original/file-20191014-135501-1u7w8sr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296870/original/file-20191014-135501-1u7w8sr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296870/original/file-20191014-135501-1u7w8sr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296870/original/file-20191014-135501-1u7w8sr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296870/original/file-20191014-135501-1u7w8sr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Video streaming firms are making their own content.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/madrid-spain-august-13-2018-samsung-1154935315?src=RV1Q0nOGXiZVnemT7mHDcg-1-83">Manuel Esteban/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are also important differences between these media industries. In the case of film, distributors such as Netflix, Amazon and HBO are <a href="https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/netflix-content-spending-2019-15-billion-1203112090/">investing heavily</a> in producing their own content, such as House of Cards, The Vikings and Game of Thrones, in order to grow and retain their subscribers. This makes it harder for consumers to access everything without multiple subscriptions.</p>
<p>In contrast, production and distribution are mostly separated in the music industry. Record labels continue to focus on production while other players such as Spotify and Apple focus on distribution. This separation allows each distributor to offer a deep catalogue of content, which has enabled music streaming services to become a practical alternative to piracy for the average music lover. If record companies were to break this model by requiring consumers to pay for several music service subscriptions to access their favourite artists, it would risk pushing them back to illegal sites.</p>
<p>Instead, music distributors compete mainly on how this catalogue is presented, navigated and consumed. And this is where a large user base is beneficial to the distributor, generating information that improves content navigation and recommendations, as well as valuable social interactions on the service and through integration with social networks such as Facebook. It also increases the distributors’ bargaining power when it comes to securing the content from the record companies.</p>
<p>This gives an advantage to companies with more users, encouraging a <a href="https://www.london.edu/lbsr/nine-reasons-why-tech-markets-are-winner-take-all">winner-takes-all</a> dynamic in which a small number of firms become dominant. In fact, the advantages of a large user base together with a large content catalogue are so strong that we don’t expect the launch of new streaming services by film and TV studios to keep the market fragmented forever. So while Netflix faces significant short-term challenges, it (or one of its rivals) may still eventually emerge as the dominant player.</p>
<h2>Other media</h2>
<p>How this separation between production and distribution will play out for books and video games in the long term is yet uncertain. But if consumers require several services to access their desired content, physical copies will remain attractive. And in these media categories, the physical still retains the upper hand.</p>
<p>While <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/18/tech/e3-video-games-cloud-gaming/index.html">some are enthusiastic</a> about video game streaming services, these have yet to prove they can match the gameplay experiences traditional consoles are capable of. If the stream is slow to register a player’s commands or the video quality suffers or cuts out even for a split second, it could make many fast-paced games <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/games/2019/jul/26/video-game-streaming-is-it-worth-it">less enjoyable or even unplayable</a>.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, physical books still provide an experience many readers appreciate, which may explain why <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/03/leading-the-entertainment-pack-uk-print-book-sales-rise-again">sales have rebounded</a> over the last few years. Physical collections also help consumers build more of a <a href="https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/07378830911007673/full/html">personal relationship</a> with their media, in contrast to the impersonal abundance of choice promoted by digital services. They also have resale value that, in some cases, can be substantial.</p>
<p>So in the long term, we expect the distribution and consumption of media to migrate to a small handful of streaming services, as they already have for music. But in the meantime, catalogues could remain fragmented over several providers. We will have to wait and see if new streaming services are worth it. But if you can’t be bothered with multiple subscriptions or adapting to their current limitations, a shelf of carefully selected Blu-Rays, books and video games remains a safe bet.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123828/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Movie studios are launching their own streaming apps but record labels aren’t about to do the same.Andres Hervas-Drane, Senior Lecturer in Management, Cass Business School, City, University of LondonPaolo Aversa, Senior Lecturer in Strategy, Cass Business School, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1152732019-04-22T10:45:37Z2019-04-22T10:45:37ZWill Netflix eventually monetize its user data?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269022/original/file-20190412-76856-y27th8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Netflix currently spends much more cash than it brings in, leading to consistent negative cash flow and a mountain of debt.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/us-president-george-washington-face-portrait-1020235492">sakhorn/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Even in the wake of a <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/netflix-earnings-q1-2019-183928130.html">recent mixed earning report and volatile stock prices</a>, Netflix remains the media success story of the decade. The company, whose user base has <a href="http://infographic.statista.com/normal/chartoftheday_10311_netflix_subscriptions_usa_international_n.jpg">grown rapidly</a>, now boasts almost 150 million global subscribers.</p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=I2Zb3TsAAAAJ&hl=en">But as someone who studies the television industry</a>, I’ve always wondered how Netflix can provide so much unlimited ad-free content for such a low monthly rate, which currently averages around US$14. </p>
<p>After all, didn’t <a href="https://www.theringer.com/movies/2019/2/6/18212482/moviepass-mitch-lowe-khalid-itum-interview-2019">MoviePass just fall apart</a> using a similar model of offering ad-free content for a monthly subscription fee? And Netflix is <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/investing/netflix-cash-burn-stock/index.html">burning through cash</a>, with negative cash flow of $3 billion in 2018 alone. </p>
<p>What if we’re looking at Netflix through the wrong lens? What if its primary long-term business model is not as a media content or distribution company, but as a data aggregation company? </p>
<p>Seeing Netflix this way might better explain its current strategy and clue us into the company’s future plans, while <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/opinion/internet-privacy-project.html">raising red flags about ethics and privacy</a>.</p>
<h2>Spending more and charging less</h2>
<p>For a century of screen entertainment, there were only a few ways for Americans to pay for media:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>You could purchase a book, album or DVD, “lease” a movie theater seat or rent a tape at a video store;</p></li>
<li><p>You could pay with your attention by consuming ads alongside “free” radio or television programming;</p></li>
<li><p>Or you could subscribe to cable TV, and pay a large monthly fee to access an array of scheduled programming.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Netflix doesn’t follow any of these three models. Instead it most resembles HBO’s subscription service, which similarly provides ad-free original programming alongside a library of older content for a monthly fee. </p>
<p>While they may seem analogous, there are key differences. HBO is part of a larger media company, which gives it access to vast content libraries. And even though HBO charges more than Netflix, it spends far less for original content. In 2017, <a href="http://fortune.com/2018/07/08/netflix-original-programming-13-billion/">HBO spent $2.5 billion to Netflix’s $8 billion</a>. The latter’s spending grew to $13 billion in 2018.</p>
<h2>Relying on subscribers, not ads</h2>
<p>Pouring money into content might generate hits, but not direct profits: Netflix’s sole revenue stream is subscriptions, so its primary goal is to gain and retain subscribers. Having <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/02/netflix-ratings/462447/">popular content generates buzz</a>, and Netflix hypes its brand by using <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/2/6/18212781/netflix-viewership-explained">self-reported numbers</a> to claim that its original films and series like “Bird Box” and “Sex Education” attract millions of viewers. Yet Netflix only yields the same monthly fee per household, regardless of how much subscribers watch. </p>
<p>This makes Netflix distinct from other media companies that use highly profitable hits to generate revenue. This will then subsidize the production of new films, television shows, albums and video games. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, competing streaming platforms Hulu and Amazon Prime Video have other revenue sources – <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/hulu-netflix-secret-weapon-2017-6">advertising</a> and <a href="https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/amazon-prime-video-channels-tv-revenue-estimates-1203083998/">retail</a>, respectively – and their larger diversified companies can better leverage hits.</p>
<p>Netflix needs to produce and acquire desirable content to make the service indispensable. But making original content is expensive. Hiring talent and producing movies and television series costs the company <a href="https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/netflix-content-spending-2019-15-billion-1203112090/">more than $15 billion annually</a>. Netflix spends much more cash than it brings in, leading to consistent negative cash flow and a <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/netflix-earnings-q1-2019-183928130.html">mountain of debt that amounts to more than $10 billion</a>.</p>
<p>Even though <a href="https://www.netflixinvestor.com/financials/quarterly-earnings/default.aspx">it reported a record $1.2 billion in profit in 2018</a>, those profits are based on an accounting model that ignores many costs and debts. This has led some financial analysts, like <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/business/netflix-audience-stock-debt.html">NYU professor Aswath Damodaran</a>, to believe that Netflix’s business model is unsustainable. </p>
<p>“The more Netflix grows,” he wrote last fall, “the more its costs grow and the more money it burns. I’m not sure how it’s ever going to turn that around.” </p>
<p>So with only one stable, inflexible revenue source, how might Netflix’s business model become more sustainable? </p>
<h2>More analogous to Facebook?</h2>
<p>One theory is that Netflix is playing the long game, pitting itself against social media companies like Facebook and YouTube, rather than just film studios or TV networks.</p>
<p>Media commentator <a href="https://redef.com/original/5b400a2779328f4711d5675e">Matthew Ball</a> argues that Netflix is in a race with the social media giants to occupy “every minute of leisure time available.”</p>
<p>Yet Netflix’s financial model is the inverse of Facebook’s and YouTube’s. The social media giants generate <a href="http://www.businessofapps.com/data/youtube-statistics/">huge advertising revenues from free, user-generated content</a>. Perhaps Netflix could balance content costs with higher subscription fees and its growing global user base. It seems unlikely, however, that this model could lead to anything beyond small profit margins.</p>
<p>But what if the parallel between Netflix and Facebook runs deeper than cost and revenue?</p>
<p>From its inception as a DVD rental service, <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nicolenguyen/netflix-recommendation-algorithm-explained-binge-watching">Netflix has touted its competitive advantage through its algorithm</a> – the predictive engine that claims to deliver the most user-specific content from its vast library. Netflix has always been a technology firm first and foremost, invested in mining its library of vast user data to deliver what viewers want to watch.</p>
<p>For instance, the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/at-netflix-who-wins-when-its-hollywood-vs-the-algorithm-1541826015">Netflix engineering team strives</a> “to have customers click on a show in the first 10 seconds.” Such obsessive interface tweaking helps promote programming – <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-netflix-winning-2019-bullish-160207852.html">as Ball notes</a>, “the most valuable real estate in the world is the top fold of Netflix home page.” But it doesn’t generate revenue.</p>
<p>This emphasis on viewing optimization, internal promotion and maximizing engagement resonates with another recent Netflix offering: the “Black Mirror” episode “<a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/black-mirror-bandersnatch-endings-explained-1171556">Bandersnatch</a>.” Netflix’s highest-profile experiment in interactive narrative, “Bandersnatch” allows viewers to choose how the story unfolds from dozens of options.</p>
<p>Netflix collects data from viewers of “Bandersnatch,” charting the narrative choices they made during the episode. Such viewer activity feeds into Netflix’s tracking efforts that it uses to make programming decisions and customize promotion to each subscriber. </p>
<p>A logical next step would be product integration. Based on your choices within the narrative around specific brand names, <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/2/18165182/black-mirror-bandersnatch-netflix-interactive-strategy-marketing">Netflix could then sell customized micro-targeted product placements</a> within programs – a strategy that could actually lead to increased revenue.</p>
<h2>A data gold mine?</h2>
<p>Based on all we know about <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/31/personal-data-corporate-use-google-amazon">Silicon Valley’s aggressive monetization of user data</a>, what else could Netflix do, beyond product integration, with this valuable information?</p>
<p>Netflix logs everything you have ever watched and how you watch – every time you pause, what programs you consider watching but choose not to and when you’re most likely to binge on “Friends” reruns. </p>
<p>When linked to website trackers, Netflix could, for example, cross-reference that viewing data with your social media accounts, your purchasing habits, your search history and even your emails. </p>
<p>In the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/opinion/sunday/privacy-capitalism.html">age of surveillance capitalism</a>, such data could be worth a fortune to marketers, political campaigns and advertisers.</p>
<p>As far as we know, Netflix has not started using its data to track us online, package us to marketers or cross-reference our private messages (even though <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/18/18147616/facebook-user-data-giveaway-nyt-apple-amazon-spotify-netflix">Facebook has provided Netflix access to this information</a>). And I doubt Netflix will violate its core brand by incorporating ads into its interface. Partnering with or acquiring a marketing firm to suffuse every subscriber’s online experiences with micro-targeted ads seems more likely. </p>
<p>All of these potential uses of viewing data are still speculative. But since profits regularly eclipse tech companies’ ethical standards, it’s important to be asking these questions before, rather than after, the damage is done.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115273/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason Mittell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Something about Netflix’s business model just doesn’t add up – unless you look at the streaming service as a massive data collection company.Jason Mittell, Professor of Film & Media Culture, MiddleburyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1124482019-02-26T12:26:19Z2019-02-26T12:26:19ZIf anyone won the Oscars this year it was Netflix – the prize for its industry disruption<p>No single film dominated the 2019 Academy Awards as in some years, but arguably Netflix emerges as the winner. It entered the awards as an outsider and won in some of the most important categories. With 15 Oscar nominations, Netflix achieved as many nominations in 2019 as in the previous five years added together. </p>
<p>The Netflix film <a href="https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/80240715">Roma</a> was nominated for 10 awards including best picture, best director, best foreign language film and best cinematography, and <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/25/netflix-roma-oscar-wins/">went on to win the latter three</a>. For the first time, a film distributed by an online streaming provider has won the industry’s highest accolade. </p>
<p>Behind the polite plaudits and acceptance speeches there are bitter feelings within the mainstream film industry on whether Netflix merits this level of recognition. John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theater Owners, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/16/business/media/netflix-movies-hollywood.html">articulated this reticence</a> when he said: “for filmmakers who want to go to Netflix, they are kind of selling their soul – the pot of money versus how they know a movie should be seen.”</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260775/original/file-20190225-26174-11g9dw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260775/original/file-20190225-26174-11g9dw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260775/original/file-20190225-26174-11g9dw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=877&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260775/original/file-20190225-26174-11g9dw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=877&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260775/original/file-20190225-26174-11g9dw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=877&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260775/original/file-20190225-26174-11g9dw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1102&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260775/original/file-20190225-26174-11g9dw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1102&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260775/original/file-20190225-26174-11g9dw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1102&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Roma’s theatrical poster.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roma_theatrical_poster.png">Netflix</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Roma’s success is the latest beachhead in the ongoing march of Netflix as a serial disruptor in the entertainment industry. In the late 1990s the company famously disrupted the video and DVD rental business through an online subscription model with rented titles distributed by post. Its tenacity in sticking to this model saw Netflix dispatch rental industry leader Blockbuster, which closed in 2010. </p>
<p>Next in line were television broadcasters, which Netflix took on through its online streaming service once broadband internet speeds allowed it. This has fuelled the <a href="https://hbr.org/2018/10/how-netflix-expanded-to-190-countries-in-7-years">unprecedented speed of the company’s international expansion</a>, transforming Netflix from a content aggregator to a producer of high-quality content, now posing a <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/48cc5458-2885-11e9-a5ab-ff8ef2b976c7">major challenge</a> to mainstream broadcasters and encouraging many “<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/outlook-for-traditional-tv-goes-from-bad-to-worse-1542632401">cord-cutters</a>” to cancel the cable TV subscriptions once seen as essential. It has also driven fundamental changes in viewing habits, ushering in the generation of “binge-watchers”.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fp_i7cnOgbQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>But the success of Roma at the Oscars was not a happy accident. It was the result of the same single-minded determination that has driven Netflix’s previous industry disruption. The film was the ideal weapon to seek an Academy Award. It had a director and producer with strong track records and previous awards and its <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/netflix-roma-theaters-explainer_us_5c0e77ece4b035a7bf5da827">black-and-white arthouse style</a> offered only limited appeal to mainstream cinema audiences anyway. Netflix even compromised on its long-held day-and-date strategy, which requires its programming to be available in all regions at the same time in order to meet the qualifying criteria of the Academy (which requires that a film has some degree of cinema release). It also <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/17/business/media/netflix-movies-oscars.html">commissioned the Oscar campaign veteran Lisa Taback</a> to promote the case for this movie with Academy members.</p>
<h2>Keeping up the momentum</h2>
<p>But Netflix now faces stark <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/43f9e89a-30c4-11e9-8744-e7016697f225">commercial realities</a>. The company’s share price has risen over 20-fold and its revenue has grown from US$3.5 billion to US$16 billion since 2012, but by 2018 the company had long-term debt of over US$10 billion. And this excludes the additional US$19.3 billion needed to secure the rights to content Netflix intends to stream in the future. </p>
<p>The sheer volume of content that Netflix subscribers now expect is expensive to sustain, with production budgets estimated to be in the region of US$13 billion this year. This puts pressure on free cash-flow which will inevitably remain negative for the foreseeable future.</p>
<p>If Netflix is to service its mounting debt burden and remain sustainable, it needs to accelerate new subscriber growth and increase the revenue subscribers yield. This will be necessary in the face of aggressive competition from other established streaming players, such as Amazon, Hulu or HBO, and to stay one step ahead of new entrants such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/24/netflix-market-leader-apple-disney-launch-streaming-services-roma">Disney and Apple</a>, which come equipped with very deep pockets. </p>
<p>This will not be possible if Netflix continues to be seen as merely an alternative delivery channel for viewing content that would otherwise be available via broadcast television. Instead, Netflix wants to be recognised as the premium channel through which high-quality content may be viewed. The hope is that it will therefore be perceived by the market as being at least equivalent – if not superior – to cinemas as somewhere to watch the latest movies. Achieving such a shift in consumer and producer preferences would disrupt the established industry business model of giving cinemas precedence for latest releases.</p>
<p>Even were Netflix to achieve this, past precedent suggests that we should not expect the company to be satisfied. The company makes no secret of its view that it sees itself in competition with all other users of leisure time and leisure dollars. Its focus on enticing subscribers to further increase their viewing hours at the expense of other activities is unlikely to diminish.</p>
<p>However, the question remains whether whether Netflix can navigate its financial challenges and battle the competition that seeks to thwart its extraordinary march of disruption. Media mogul Barry Diller has already concluded that Netflix has won and that “<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6723141/Former-CEO-Paramount-Fox-says-Netflix-won-game-Hollywood-irrelevant.html">Hollywood is now irrelevant</a>”. Perhaps, but we can expect many more episodes of Netflix as serial disruptor to play out before we know for sure.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/112448/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With 15 nominations and three Oscars, Netflix is besting the big film industry players at their own party.Louis Brennan, Professor of Business Studies, Trinity College DublinPaul Lyons, Lecturer in Business Studies, Trinity College DublinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1084472018-12-19T13:45:22Z2018-12-19T13:45:22ZNetflix strikes another blow against the old school film industry – but cinema is not dead yet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/250669/original/file-20181214-185243-18bms5q.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Netflix</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Huge technological advances in the production and consumption of feature films have led, yet again, to the claim that cinema is dead. Digital film making, distribution and projection have seen reels of “film” all but disappear. And the availability of what we want to watch, whenever and wherever we wish, has changed irrevocably our relationship with the moving image. </p>
<p>The news that Netflix is showing new films <a href="https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-news/a25261580/why-the-ballad-of-buster-scruggs-works-better-as-a-movie-than-a-series/">by the Coen Brothers</a> and <a href="https://www.wired.co.uk/article/roma-review-netflix-alfonso-cuaron">Alfonso Cuaron</a> (with only minimal theatrical screenings, so as to be eligible for the impending awards season) is being seen as yet another fundamental change in how we access film, and more specifically, “quality” cinema.</p>
<p>But although cinema is barely over a century old, its reliance on technology means it has always had a turbulent time. So perhaps it is worth looking at previous announcements of the demise of the most tawdry yet popular of the arts. Are the prophets of doom just crying wolf again?</p>
<h2>Reaction and reinvention</h2>
<p>The “end of cinema” was first declared in the late 1920s with the introduction of synchronised sound to silent film. But film had never actually been silent – music was always an accompaniment to any screening whether by a solo pianist or a full orchestra. </p>
<p>Yet purists still argued that sound would coarsen the artistic nature of cinema and make it merely a form of mass entertainment. Film production did indeed have to change to accommodate the technology required to record sound as well as a visual image, and there was a short period in which film production was bogged down by these innovations.</p>
<p>But by the mid-1930s, sound was ubiquitous, making cinema an even more popular form of mass entertainment with a plethora of memorable lines of dialogue to quote.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QUjxsuGwTA8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>The threat from the sofa</h2>
<p>The next major bump in the cinematic road came after World War II, and the beginning of the consumer age. The postwar boom saw mass employment and a host of new widely owned domestic devices. These included refrigerators, hifi systems and televisions – the new nemesis of the film industry. </p>
<p>As people stayed at home to watch TV rather than going out to the cinema, film production changed. Major studios made fewer films and concentrated on bigger, more spectacular movies. Shot in glorious wide screen Technicolor, they were made to be noticeably distinct from what was available at home. </p>
<p>This slump in film production did not last long, however. The big studios soon found a voracious demand for product from the upstart small screen. Soon enough, most had set up television divisions to mass produce filmed shows for syndication to broadcast networks. For Hollywood, television turned out to be more saviour than Satan. </p>
<p>The next crisis came in the late 1970s with the introduction of home video devices to record and play shows and films from broadcast television. Yes, there was another slump in cinema attendances – but this was due to a variety of issues, most notably the parlous state of many cinemas which were often old, run down, and in the wrong parts of town. </p>
<p>Home video had its brief moment of hysteria before studios realised that there was now a demand for prerecorded video tapes of classic films – the same films which were taking up so much space in their archives. They now had a new lease of life, at zero production cost, and a new valuable stream of revenue. </p>
<p>This also led to a new pattern in film distribution. A movie now had a theatrical run, then a video release and was then sold to broadcasters for television. Again, the “death” was more of a rebirth, and a lucrative one at that, which continued with the invention of DVD and Blu-Ray.</p>
<p>In fact, the film industry’s recurring problem has always been its complacency and inability to see the potential benefits of new technology. The latest revolution, streaming films and TV shows to digital devices is more problematic, and one that has dangers for the big Hollywood studios (which are now after all, mere cogs in globalised multinational corporations). </p>
<h2>Awards and access</h2>
<p>Amazon, Apple and Netflix have evolved from being delivery systems into becoming fully fledged entertainment businesses. They produce, distribute and exhibit their product to a mass global audience, with budgets that dwarf those of established studios. And with the promise of future Oscars and Palme D'Ors, critical recognition and respectability will make them the major forces in film production.</p>
<p>So, is this the death of cinema (again), or another morphing of a global industry to changing habits and opportunities? Well, director Alphonso Cuaron’s Roma has already <a href="https://variety.com/2018/film/news/venice-film-festival-complete-list-of-winners-updated-live-1202933206/">won the Golden Lion</a> at 2018’s Venice Film Festival, and usually we would have to wait a year or so to see it as it does the round of festivals and awards. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6BS27ngZtxg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Instead it is now available on Netflix for anyone to watch in the comfort of their own home. Might the experience of watching a film in a cinema become exclusively the realm for big-budget blockbuster movies that employ such things as 3D, Ultra-HD, 4DX and every other technical excess that becomes available? Cinema attendances are in fact booming – attendances in 2018 are the <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/cinema-attendance-is-highest-since-the-1970s-11581982">highest since 1970</a> – so some ways in which we consume cinema remain quite traditional. It is the means of choosing a wider range of films and having near instant access to them that provide both challenges and opportunities.</p>
<p>Access is now the key advantage for streaming platforms – but this will also be in a constant state of flux as technology develops ever further. These new production houses will need to respond to the new problems and opportunities that will soon be theirs to deal with. They will soon realise that cinema never really dies, it just changes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108447/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Carter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Oscar winning performances released straight to your home.Martin Carter, Principal Lecturer in Film, Sheffield Hallam UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1023982018-09-03T20:04:29Z2018-09-03T20:04:29ZFacebook’s new video ‘Watch’ option enters an already crowded market<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234565/original/file-20180903-195301-1kntwf9.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Facebook Watch logo now appears on mobile apps.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Facebook’s <a href="https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/08/facebook-watch-global/">global launch</a> of its Watch video service fragments an <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-australian-streaming-survive-a-fresh-onslaught-from-overseas-101311">already crowded market</a> of video-on-demand available in Australia. </p>
<p>The service was first <a href="https://www.facebook.com/facebookmedia/blog/introducing-watch-and-shows-on-facebook">launched in the US</a> 12 months ago. At last week’s global launch, Facebook’s head of video, Fidji Simo, <a href="https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/08/facebook-watch-global/">said</a> the company had made the video service “more social”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/can-australian-streaming-survive-a-fresh-onslaught-from-overseas-101311">Can Australian streaming survive a fresh onslaught from overseas?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Facebook platform is built around social interaction, so Watch allows those watching videos to also engage in discussions associated with the content being viewed.</p>
<h2>Another video streaming service for Australians</h2>
<p>But do we need another video streaming service given what’s already available, and promised? Facebook Watch has been launched into a crowded, but still not yet fully matured, market place. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7681-netflix-stan-foxtel-fetch-youtube-amazon-pay-tv-june-2018-201808020452">Recent research</a> by Ray Morgan found “over 13 million Australians now use Pay TV/Subscription TV services”. </p>
<p>Many subscription video on demand (SVoD) services have seen large growth. For Amazon it was 90% (year on year), while Netflix, Stan, YouTube Premium and Fetch all saw growth of more than 25% (year on year).</p>
<p>Some <a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7681-netflix-stan-foxtel-fetch-youtube-amazon-pay-tv-june-2018-201808020452">services</a> have solid user bases: Netflix (9.8 million), Foxtel (5.4 million) and Stan (2 milllion). Others are only <a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7681-netflix-stan-foxtel-fetch-youtube-amazon-pay-tv-june-2018-201808020452">starting</a> to grow, such as YouTube Premium (1 million), Fetch TV (700,000) and Amazon Prime Video (273,000).</p>
<p>We still <a href="https://www.news.com.au/technology/home-entertainment/tv/the-new-netflix-rival-coming-to-australia/news-story/dc1f2d14b3d3ce171572397e9aff43e3">await the arrival</a> of CBS All Access and the potential for Disney’s video streaming service to be launched globally.</p>
<p>Facebook’s introduction of Watch could make the competition a little harder for all these players. </p>
<p>Another question will be around how Watch competes and makes itself different from the other video streaming services.</p>
<h2>Original content a point of difference?</h2>
<p>Original content has been a way for many video services to differentiate themselves in a changing and crowded streaming media landscape. Netflix and Amazon both invest heavily in original content. </p>
<p>Netflix is <a href="http://fortune.com/2018/07/08/netflix-original-programming-13-billion/">expected</a> to spend US$12-13 billion on original content this year. In comparison, last year US television network CBS spent US$4 billion and HBO spent even less, US$2.5 billion.</p>
<p>Netflix has seen results: not only subscription growth, but also “more than 90% of Netflix’s <a href="https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/netflix-original-spending-85-percent-1202809623/">customers</a> regularly watch original programming”. It also <a href="http://www.vulture.com/2018/07/emmys-2018-nominations-netflix-hbo.html">dominated</a> Emmy nominations in 2018.</p>
<p>Facebook has created <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_distributed_by_Facebook_Watch">original content</a> for the Watch platform since its launch last year, mainly with documentary series and sport.</p>
<p>At the start of the year Facebook <a href="https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2018/01/17/natpe-facebook-orders-shows-from-bear-grylls-blumhouse-tv/">signed</a> a deal for a Bear Grylls series, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/FaceTheWild/">Bear Grylls: Face the Wild</a>. In the show, ten Facebook fans get an adventures of a lifetime, following Grylls.</p>
<p>More <a href="https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2018/07/04/facebook-signs-up-with-golden-boy-for-boxing-on-watch/">recently</a> Facebook signed a deal with boxing promoter Golden Boy Promotions for five live streamed fights, allowing real-time fan interaction.</p>
<p>It’s these types of programs that give greater potential for the “<a href="https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103953498015081">chat and connect</a>” aspects of Watch that Facebook’s Mark Zuckerbrerg is encouraging. </p>
<p>Facebook also has the <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/17/facebook-watch-party/">Watch Party</a> feature, where a group of users (watchers) can be viewing the same content simultaneously. This further integrates the platform’s ability for on-going discussion and community building within the Facebook ecosystem.</p>
<h2>The competition</h2>
<p>Facebook’s main competition will be other other social media platforms that have recently directed their interests in video. </p>
<p>Facebook’s global Watch announcement comes only a month after YouTube and Instagram announced their new video strategies.</p>
<p>Instagram’s new service <a href="https://instagram-press.com/blog/2018/06/20/welcome-to-igtv/">IGTV</a> (aka Instagram TV) is a separate service and app to the Instagram app. Ironically the video content is intended to be vertical in format, rather than horizontal for traditional television. </p>
<p>This could create some headaches if the content is to expand out to smart TVs, and for creators attempting to cross-post content across multiple social platforms. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/youtube-red-is-here-and-it-breaks-the-video-on-demand-mould-59656">YouTube Red</a> subscription service is now to be known as <a href="https://australia.googleblog.com/2018/05/introducing-youtube-premium.html">YouTube Premium</a>, along with <a href="https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/consumer/2018/06/20/youtube-music-spotify-apple/">YouTube Music</a>. </p>
<p>The service is starting to gain some Australian subscribers, increasing from 700,000 in 2017 to more than 1 million in 2018. YouTube also has YouTube TV in the US, which Nielsen will start to include as part of its <a href="https://www.adweek.com/tv-video/nielsen-will-now-measure-youtube-tv-viewership-on-a-local-level/">measurement</a> services.</p>
<p>YouTube content viewed on a television is <a href="http://adage.com/article/digital/youtube-connects-tv-audiences-top-world/310037/">continuing to grow</a>, up 90% in 2016 and 2017.</p>
<p>Twitter has also <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/05/15/twitter-livenation-partnership-video-streaming/">made attempts to compete</a> in the video streaming space for a number of years, mainly focused on sport.</p>
<h2>Superabundance of video content</h2>
<p>Facebook’s battle to succeed with Watch will be clearly aligned with YouTube. Both have approximately 2 billion <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/youtube-user-statistics-2018-5">users</a> and for Facebook it will be a long and up-hill battle, if it even has a chance. </p>
<p>But first it needs to <a href="https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2018/02/01/facebook-usage-time-down-5-following-updates/">stop the decline</a> in the amount of time users spend on its service. That dropped 5% in the final quarter of last year.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-fragmented-streaming-video-market-is-good-for-everyone-but-the-consumer-82367">A fragmented streaming video market is good for everyone but the consumer</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Making users aware of the Watch service is its next battle. A <a href="https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2018/08/22/tdg-50-of-facebook-users-have-never-heard-of-facebook-watch/">report from the US</a> showed that after 12 months of the services being available:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… 50% of the polled Facebook users had never heard of Facebook Watch, while a further 24% had heard of it but never used it. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Despite these figures, Facebook is confident Watch will succeed. Facebook’s Fidji Simo <a href="https://www.itnews.com.au/news/facebooks-watch-video-service-comes-to-australia-511714">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Every month more than 50 million people in the US come to watch videos for at least a minute on Watch, and total time spent watching video on Facebook Watch has increased by 14 times since the start of 2018.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While the Watch Party <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/17/facebook-watch-party/">feature</a> could give the platform a small point of difference from other streaming services, it will need more to lift user engagement.</p>
<p>It is more than likely that original content, as we have seen on other services, will be a key factor in Facebook Watch’s success.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/102398/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station).</span></em></p>How likely are you to tune in to watch a streamed show at the same time as your friends, and chat in real time online? This is the goal of Facebook Watch.Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Screen Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1011622018-08-09T15:15:54Z2018-08-09T15:15:54ZThe rise of cyberlockers: how online piracy is fighting back<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/230871/original/file-20180807-191044-1x10haf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/computer-transfer-download-failed-data-stop-474598984">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Illegal downloading is on its way out. A <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-45042838">new report</a> released by polling firm YouGov has found that only 10% of people in the UK now use illegal downloads to access music, down from 18% in 2013. And the recently released <a href="https://www.ivir.nl/projects/global-online-piracy-study/">Global online piracy study</a> from the University of Amsterdam argued that entertainment streaming services such as Spotify and Netflix mean that far fewer people are accessing copyright-infringing content.</p>
<p>Despite this, pirated songs, films and TV shows are still widely available online. For example, the Amsterdam study also found that 36% of the UK population has accessed illegal content online in the last year. The shift from downloads to streaming is real but it hasn’t solved all the entertainment industry’s problems because piracy has also shifted in a similar way. A growing fraction of illegal content is now accessed through streaming “cyberlockers”, YouTube-like websites often used to upload and share video content without permission. There has recently been significant growth in their use, <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/628704/OCI_-tracker-7th-wave.pdf">with 10% of infringers using cyberlockers in 2017, up from 4% in 2016</a>.</p>
<p>Together with my PhD student Damilola Ibosiola and other colleagues, I <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.02679.pdf">recently published research</a> showing that most illegal streaming cyberlocker content is distributed by just a handful of providers, as opposed to the millions of people who used to share files illegally through peer-to-peer downloading software. This might make it easier for law enforcement to contact the host of an illegal file, but it also means that they are up against people with extensive experience in evading detection. As a result, the pirates are constantly fighting back.</p>
<p>Because of this, we wanted to understand how the cyberlockers used by pirates operate, and shed light on this murky domain. We built software to monitor the videos uploaded onto popular cyberlockers, as well as “indexing websites”, which maintain a directory of links to reliable sources of videos on cyberlockers. In total, we identified over 795,000 links.</p>
<h2>How it works</h2>
<p>What we found was truly fascinating, a dynamic ecosystem of competing players, constantly striving to evade detection and being forced to takedown content. This is perhaps not surprising given our observation that these operations were apparently very fragile.</p>
<p>For example, one website we studied was taken offline three months into our measurements. But these kinds of departures were also complimented by various new cyberlocker arrivals. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/230874/original/file-20180807-160647-1sgvdn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/230874/original/file-20180807-160647-1sgvdn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230874/original/file-20180807-160647-1sgvdn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230874/original/file-20180807-160647-1sgvdn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230874/original/file-20180807-160647-1sgvdn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230874/original/file-20180807-160647-1sgvdn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230874/original/file-20180807-160647-1sgvdn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Accessing illegal online content is still common.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/online-movie-stream-mobile-device-man-728322208?src=8fc66K2izADySXQ6W0pmPA-1-0">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>All seemed in a constant flux, with links being added and deleted regularly. A total of 55% of cyberlockers saw growth during our measurement period, while 45% saw a decline. But the apparent diversity of cyberlockers may be rather superficial. By examining certain features of the sites to infer potential relationships, we discovered that, in many cases, individual operators were running multiple different websites.</p>
<p>A total of 58% of all videos that we monitored were held by just two major hosting providers, although from the outside they appeared to be dispersed across 15 apparently independent cyberlockers. This meant action against one company could take down a huge chunk of illegal material. </p>
<p>Our guess was that this was largely a product of the cat-and-mouse game played between cyberlockers and copyright enforcers. These enforcers monitor popular websites to identify infringing content, and then use legal notices to request its removal. </p>
<p>We observed cyberlockers use many techniques to fly under the radar of these enforcers. A total of 64% of the sites we studied did not have search features, making it difficult to find content from their front page, and 42% obscured their true content by hiding it among various obscure copyright-free videos.</p>
<p>To get an idea of how successful the copyright enforcers were, we also used data from <a href="https://lumendatabase.org/">Lumen</a>, which records cease and desist letters concerning online content. We were surprised to find that 84% of the notices we monitored were apparently acted upon, with cyberlockers taking down the content. What was less surprising to find was that it usually wasn’t long before the very same content emerged elsewhere (often on the same cyberlocker under a different page).</p>
<p>It seems that online piracy is less of a technical game, and more of a socioeconomic one, with pirates and law enforcers constantly innovating around each other. In most cases, both sides of the debate are driven by financial incentives. It therefore seems likely that the long-term solution will be for the media industry to create new business models that deplete those incentives. Until then, the game will continue.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101162/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gareth Tyson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>‘Cyberlocker’ illegal streaming sites are in a constant cat-and-mouse struggle with law enforcement.Gareth Tyson, Lecturer in Computer science, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/825612017-09-29T02:35:23Z2017-09-29T02:35:23ZWhy the FCC’s proposed internet rules may spell trouble ahead<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186052/original/file-20170914-24296-1yz229k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How fast is that video really coming in?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/hand-holds-smartphone-video-player-application-383521630">hvostik/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-proposes-restore-internet-freedom">Federal Communications Commission takes up a formal proposal</a> to reverse the Obama-era <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order">Open Internet Order</a>, a key question consumers and policymakers alike are asking is: What difference do these rules make?</p>
<p>My research team has been studying one key element of the regulations – called “throttling,” the practice of limiting download speeds – for several years, spanning a period both before the 2015 Open Internet Order was issued and after it took effect. Our <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2815675.2815691">findings</a> reveal not only the state of internet openness before the Obama initiative but also the measurable results of the policy’s effect.</p>
<p>The methods we used and the tools we developed investigate how internet service providers manage your traffic and demonstrate how open the internet really is – or isn’t – as a result of evolving internet service plans, as well as political and regulatory changes. Regular people can explore their own services with our <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=mobi.meddle.wehe">mobile app for Android</a>, which is out now; an iOS version is coming soon. We’re working with the <a href="https://www.arcep.fr/">French equivalent of the FCC</a> to promote our measurement tools in France to help audit whether French ISPs are compliant with local net neutrality protections. Other countries, including the U.S., could follow the French lead, using our tools to evaluate their internet service quality.</p>
<h2>Rules take effect</h2>
<p>Before the Open Internet Order took effect in 2015, companies running cellular networks were allowed to use throttling to manage how much data their networks needed to handle at any given time. To do this, some companies capped users’ download speeds, which could cause video to stream at lower quality, with less-sharp images that were blurry during action sequences.</p>
<p>But there were limited rules governing how the mobile companies enforced those caps: We found some providers <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2815675.2815691">slowing down YouTube videos but not Netflix or other video services</a>. This is an example of a major concern net neutrality supporters have: that internet providers might give preference to traffic from one site or another – perhaps making video providers <a href="https://www.benton.org/node/197702">pay extra to have their material delivered at high speed</a>. If the speed or quality consumers can get from an online service depends on how much providers can afford to pay, that can put startups and innovators at a disadvantage to existing internet giants.</p>
<p>When it took effect, the Open Internet Order allowed internet providers to use throttling in only a limited way, under the so-called “<a href="https://www.theverge.com/2015/3/12/8116237/net-neutrality-rules-open-internet-order-released">reasonable network management</a>” provision. Instead of singling out specific types of data for throttling, mobile companies – and wired internet providers as well – were required to do so in a way that treats all traffic equally. We <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2815675.2815691">observed</a> the companies that had slowed down YouTube but not Netflix shifting their policies to reflect this new requirement.</p>
<h2>The return of throttling</h2>
<p>In late 2015, though, T-Mobile announced a program it called “<a href="https://www.t-mobile.com/offer/binge-on-streaming-video.html">Binge On</a>,” <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/t-mobiles-video-free-for-all-everything-you-need-to-know-about-binge-on-faq/">departing from its competitors</a> by offering its customers “free” video streaming – the ability to watch some video services on their devices without counting against monthly high-speed data limits. The trade-off was that their video quality from those providers would be limited in the best case to the <a href="https://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-24291">equivalent of a regular DVD</a> – not the high-definition video most people have come to expect, and which mobile data networks are capable of carrying. Some video sites would come in at higher quality, but their data would count against users’ monthly caps. Other sites’ videos, strangely enough, would come in at low quality, though the data would still count against users’ monthly caps.</p>
<p>When my team heard the announcement, we were perplexed. It seemed clear T-Mobile was throttling, perhaps even <a href="https://www.t-mobile.com/offer/binge-on-streaming-video.html">preferentially</a>, choosing a handful of services to exempt from users’ monthly data caps, while continuing to count data from other video providers. And many users were <a href="https://www.t-mobile.com/landing/binge-on-letter.html">opted in by default</a>, potentially never knowing that T-Mobile had decided for them whether they could stream high-quality video. But most confounding, how did T-Mobile know what “video” was, as distinct from other data flowing through its networks? </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rYodcvhh7b8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">What are ‘packets,’ and how do they travel around the internet?</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Internet traffic is broken up into small chunks of data called “<a href="http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question525.htm">packets</a>” that travel through the wires separately and then are reassembled by the computer or mobile device that’s receiving them. Think of these as small messages in individual envelopes traveling through the mail. In both cases, the packets and envelopes reach their destination according to the address written on the outside – not what is contained inside.</p>
<p>It would be strange if the U.S. Postal Service looked at the envelopes, guessed what was inside, and decided your credit card bill should be delivered first, but delayed your paycheck. Unlike some envelopes, packets coming from YouTube or Spotify don’t carry information on the outside declaring what’s inside – say, “video” or “music streaming” or “web.” To the internet, they all look the same. And under the principles of net neutrality, they should all be treated the same.</p>
<h2>Unequal handling</h2>
<p>Through a <a href="http://dd.meddle.mobi/bingeon.html">set of rigorous experiments</a>, we were able to find out how T-Mobile and other internet companies tried to tell the difference between video packets and packets containing other types of data: They were looking inside the packets – inside the envelopes – for particular <a href="http://dd.meddle.mobi/bingeon.html">words or terms</a>, like “netflix.com” or “googlevideo.” </p>
<p>Someone had come up with a list of hints that indicated a particular piece of network traffic was in fact part of an online video. But of course there are countless video streaming platforms – and old ones die off and new ones are started every day. T-Mobile’s list couldn’t possibly cover them all.</p>
<p>We found that the popular video service <a href="https://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a> was not throttled by T-Mobile or Verizon. This meant that people who streamed Vimeo content used up some of their monthly data cap, but got better video quality than people watching YouTube or Netflix. This decision by T-Mobile – though it <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/tom-wheeler-accuses-att-and-verizon-of-violating-net-neutrality/">passed</a> a <a href="https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0111/DOC-342982A1.pdf">review by the FCC</a> – affected how well YouTube and Netflix could compete with Vimeo, which raises a specter of more problems to come if the FCC scraps the Open Internet Order (which, for all these reasons, <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10829966722377">I have urged them not to</a>). What, for example, would stop AT&T from giving its DirecTV subsidiary faster and better-quality traffic than it gave competitors Netflix and Hulu? </p>
<h2>Protecting consumers</h2>
<p>One way to ensure users get the service they’re expecting – and paying for – is to require more transparency from internet providers. Specifically, they should disclose how much they slow down video and what that does to video quality, but also what hints or techniques they use to detect video traffic in the first place. </p>
<p>In addition, those methods must ensure that internet companies treat all content providers equally – so users don’t get better or worse performance from different sites based on corporate interests <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-reaches-streaming-traffic-agreement-with-comcast/">or disputes</a>. And regulators need to enforce these basic rules, <a href="http://dd.meddle.mobi/codeanddata.html">using auditing tools</a> like the <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=mobi.meddle.wehe">open-source ones</a> my research team has developed.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This is an updated version of an article originally published Sept. 29, 2017.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82561/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Choffnes receives funding from the National Science Foundation, Google, Data Transparency Lab, Amazon, and the Department of Homeland Security. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of his sponsors.</span></em></p>How do internet companies decide which network traffic to slow down and which to charge against users’ data plans? And what can we learn about net neutrality from the answers?David Choffnes, Assistant Professor of Computer and Information Science, Northeastern UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/811632017-07-19T06:03:45Z2017-07-19T06:03:45ZShame! The ‘technical glitches’ that hit Game of Thrones could limit other popular live-streamed events<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178552/original/file-20170718-21742-pc1t8e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Not everyone got to see Cersei Lannister (Lena Headey ) and Jaime Lannister (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) in the opening season seven episode of Game of Thrones.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5654088/mediaviewer/rm1517238016">HBO</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Winter was coming with the first episode of the new Game of Thrones series this week, but the real freeze was a technical one.</p>
<p>Many fans across the world were unable to watch the much anticipated season opener using legal streaming services, such as <a href="https://www.foxtel.com.au/now/index.html">Foxtel Now</a> in Australia. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"886897326958051330"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"886888979185901568"}"></div></p>
<p>Foxtel <a href="http://community.foxtel.com.au/t5/Foxtel-Press-Releases/Game-of-Thrones-phenomenon-crash-sites-across-the-globe/m-p/206549">issued a statement on Monday</a> saying the problem was due to “technical glitches around the world”.</p>
<p>This technical glitch is extremely concerning, not just for fans of Game of Thrones but for the future of streaming video of major events and programming.</p>
<h2>The focus on streaming</h2>
<p>It was only last month that Foxtel launched its new logo and rebranded its Foxtel Play streaming service as Foxtel Now.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178761/original/file-20170719-31776-nwwqw2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178761/original/file-20170719-31776-nwwqw2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178761/original/file-20170719-31776-nwwqw2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178761/original/file-20170719-31776-nwwqw2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178761/original/file-20170719-31776-nwwqw2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178761/original/file-20170719-31776-nwwqw2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178761/original/file-20170719-31776-nwwqw2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178761/original/file-20170719-31776-nwwqw2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">New logo for Foxtel Now.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.foxtel.com.au/about/media-centre/press-releases/2017/introducing-foxtel-now.html">Foxtel</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The company’s <a href="https://www.foxtel.com.au/about/media-centre/press-releases/2017/introducing-foxtel-now.html">announcement</a> of the new service promised Game of Thrones fans – and those of other programs – that they could now enjoy their favourite shows in high definition for as little as A$15 per month.</p>
<p>Previously, the only way to access Game of Thrones legally in Australia was via Foxtel’s “<a href="https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2017/06/is-foxtel-now-worth-the-money/#Ro4vibhY3UVQSKJc.99">prohibitively expensive Pay TV offerings</a>”. </p>
<p>This restricted access had seen Australians become some of the world’s leaders in <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-convicts-to-pirates-australias-dubious-legacy-of-illegal-downloading-39912">illegally downloading</a> previous seasons of Game of Thrones. </p>
<p>Even with the cheaper access via Foxtel Now, a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/game-of-thrones-one-third-of-australian-fans-planning-to-pirate-season-7-20170629-gx107h.html">Finder.com.au survey</a> showed that more than 30% of people said they would be illegally downloading the new season.</p>
<p>The glitch this week will create headaches for Foxtel, and raises questions over the viability of its cheaper streaming alternative to its premium pay TV service.</p>
<p>Many Australians vented their frustration on social media via the hashtag <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/foxtelfail">#FoxtelFail</a> and on <a href="http://community.foxtel.com.au/t5/Foxtel-Press-Releases/Game-of-Thrones-phenomenon-crash-sites-across-the-globe/m-p/206549">Foxel’s community board</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"886905190095372288"}"></div></p>
<p>But while Australians targeted their anger at Foxtel, the glitch was global.</p>
<h2>A global problem</h2>
<p>In addition to Australia, fans in the <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/game-thrones-season-7-premiere-shatters-viewership-records-article-1.3334919">United States</a>, <a href="http://community.foxtel.com.au/t5/Foxtel-Press-Releases/Game-of-Thrones-on-Foxtel/td-p/206805">Latin America</a> and <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/television/hotstar-failed-to-stream-game-of-thrones-season-7-premiere-episode-and-faced-flak-4754913/">India</a> also faced the same frustrating technical issues.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.hotstar.com/">Hotstar</a>, an Indian online streaming service, had been <a href="http://gadgets.ndtv.com/entertainment/news/game-of-thrones-season-7-episode-1-torrents-download-got-s07e01-hotstar-1725707">promoting</a> an “Hours Before Torrents” promise. Its advertising used the phrases “Torrent Morghulis” and that “torrents must die”, both based on popular Game of Thrones phrases.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178762/original/file-20170719-4932-1em6igt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178762/original/file-20170719-4932-1em6igt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178762/original/file-20170719-4932-1em6igt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=279&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178762/original/file-20170719-4932-1em6igt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=279&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178762/original/file-20170719-4932-1em6igt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=279&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178762/original/file-20170719-4932-1em6igt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178762/original/file-20170719-4932-1em6igt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178762/original/file-20170719-4932-1em6igt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Advertising ahead of Game of Thrones premiere on Hotstar.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.facebook.com/hotstar/photos/a.1559468234297503.1073741827.1506095676301426/1960676820843307/?type=3&theater">Hotstar</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Unfortunately the creative marketing campaign will now be laughed at as torrents of the premiere program were reportedly <a href="http://gadgets.ndtv.com/entertainment/news/game-of-thrones-season-7-episode-1-torrents-download-got-s07e01-hotstar-1725707">available illegally</a> 45 minutes before the episode was available on Hotstar.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"886829151470080000"}"></div></p>
<h2>An unexpected surge</h2>
<p>Foxtel has redirected the blame for the technical glitch towards both its own customers – thanks to a <a href="https://mumbrella.com.au/foxtel-elaborates-on-game-of-thrones-glitch-458755">40% surge in new subscriptions</a> in the 48 hours before episode one’s screening time – and to Game of Thrones’ <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/foxtel-blames-hbo-for-bungling-game-of-thrones-season-7-premiere/8718624">US production company HBO</a>.</p>
<p>Level 3 Communications is HBO’s partner in delivering its HBO Go streaming service. Diane Tryneski, chief digital officer at HBO, <a href="http://investors.level3.com/investor-relations/press-releases/press-release-details/2017/HBO-Streams-Game-of-Thrones-Season-7-Using-Level-3s-CDN/default.aspx">had said ahead of the season premiere</a> that Level 3 was pivotal in its “ability to stream Game of Thrones and other HBO programming to our customers”.</p>
<p>Laurinda Pang, Level 3’s regional president for North America and Asia Pacific, added that with more viewers and devices accessing HBO GO content, “the importance of relying on a network optimised for media delivery cannot be overstated”.</p>
<p>But it appears that the anticipated numbers of people simultaneously accessing the Game of Thrones opening episode were underestimated. This is a situation to which Australians can relate – a similar congestion-based crash contributed to last year’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/did-the-census-really-suffer-a-denial-of-service-attack-63755">census debacle</a>.</p>
<p>It is hard to acknowledge that viewer estimates for this popular series could be so wrong, given its <a href="http://variety.com/2016/tv/ratings/game-of-thrones-ratings-season-6-finale-record-1201805035/">ratings success at the end of series six</a> in 2016.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"886736114614022148"}"></div></p>
<h2>Global streaming future</h2>
<p>But this latest technical glitch raises some bigger questions.</p>
<p>There is continual evidence in <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/be/en/insights/reports/2017/the-nielsen-total-audience-report-q1-2017.html">the US</a> and <a href="http://www.oztam.com.au/documents/Other/Australian%20Video%20Viewing%20Report%20Q1%202017%20Final.pdf">Australia</a> that audiences are changing their viewing behaviours.</p>
<p>There is a global shift from traditional television broadcast to online services, streaming and video-on-demand services. So can these services handle the future loads that are anticipated? </p>
<p>This is not just in reference to prerecorded content such as Game of Thrones, but also to live content in which technical issues, buffering and low quality video will impact the viewing experience. There was <a href="http://www.news.com.au/sport/olympics/sports-life/sevens-olympic-app-plagued-by-technical-problems-blamed-on-unprecedented-demand/news-story/5dc9aa183bb8fd3a0688affc7309c40c">evidence of these types of issues</a> last year with the Rio Olympic Games streaming content.</p>
<p>Streaming video will only continue to grow with predictions it will be 82% of all <a href="http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/complete-white-paper-c11-481360.pdf">consumer internet traffic</a> by 2021. </p>
<p>The growth of video will not just be via IP data, but also mobile. It’s estimated that almost 80% of <a href="http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/mobile-white-paper-c11-520862.html">global mobile data</a> will be video by 2021. </p>
<h2>What’s bigger than Game of Thrones?</h2>
<p>With this in mind, could the internet handle major events such as a Superbowl television audience? </p>
<p>Last year its <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/02/06/super-bowl-111-million-viewers/">TV audience</a> was more than 111 million in the US alone – far more than the 16 million <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/game-of-thrones-crowned-as-record-audience-wage-war-with-streaming-glitches-20170717-gxd6ze.html">reported</a> to have watched the latest episode of Game of Thrones.</p>
<p>Even adding the <a href="http://community.foxtel.com.au/t5/Foxtel-Press-Releases/Game-of-Thrones-on-Foxtel/td-p/206805">Australian</a> and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/game-of-thrones-crowned-as-record-audience-wage-war-with-streaming-glitches-20170717-gxd6ze.html">UK</a> figures of 1.5 million and 2.8 million respectively, it was far from a Superbowl TV audience.</p>
<p>The Superbowl online audience question was presented to a panel of experts in the US in May this year, with some interesting responses. The <a href="http://www.nscreenmedia.com/live-streaming-super-bowl-size-2022/">experts’ consensus</a> was that a live stream of the event over the internet to match the regular TV audience figure would be possible, but not until about 2023.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81163/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc C-Scott is a board member of C31 Melbourne (Community Television Station).</span></em></p>The problems some people had trying to watch Game of Thrones via the internet shows we still have a long way to go before we can live-stream major events to a mass online audience.Marc C-Scott, Lecturer in Screen Media, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/762212017-05-18T14:48:04Z2017-05-18T14:48:04ZThere’s a technology that could stop Facebook Live being used to stream murders – but it has a cost<p>It took 24 hours before the video of a man murdering his baby daughter was removed from Facebook. On April 24, 2017, the father from Thailand had <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/25/facebook-thailand-man-livestreams-killing-daughter">streamed the killing</a> of his 11-month-old baby girl using the social network’s Live video service before killing himself. The two resulting video clips were streamed hundreds of thousands of times before they were finally removed.</p>
<p>This was the not the first time Facebook has been used to live stream violent behaviour. Earlier in April, the site was used to stream a <a href="https://www.wired.com/2017/04/facebook-live-murder-steve-stephens/">murder in Cleveland</a> and a <a href="http://time.com/4756939/facebook-live-alabama-suicide-james-jeffrey/">suicide in Alabama</a> in the US.</p>
<p>As a result, Facebook has been criticised for <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/social-networking/92200963/facebook-to-add-3000-workers-to-fight-streaming-of-live-violence-suicide">not responding quickly enough</a> to the use of its live streaming service in this way. The company has responded by saying it already has plans to <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-crime-idUSKBN17Z1N4">hire 3,000 people</a> to identify any videos containing criminal and violent behaviour.</p>
<p>But with <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/01/technology/facebook-earnings/">1.86 billion users</a>, Facebook is far too big for this to be enough. What Facebook is facing is not only a management problem but a technology challenge. Instead, the social network needs to roll out more software that can detect videos with violent content automatically. </p>
<p>Traditionally, social networks have relied on users to identify criminal activities through reporting and complaining systems. If anyone feels threatened or identifies any abnormal activities, they can report them to the site or, if necessary, directly to the police. In Facebook’s case, if anyone complains about any violent content, Facebook will investigate it and decide whether it needs to be removed.</p>
<p>But given the amount of content posted every day and the speed at which it spreads, even thousands of investigators are unlikely to be enough to deal with violent videos rapidly. That’s why it took nearly <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/25/facebook-thailand-man-livestreams-killing-daughter">24 hours</a> for the murder video to be removed, even though it was reported right after the live stream started. </p>
<p>Recent developments in artificial intelligence technology could provide a solution through what is known as “text mining”, “image mining” and “video mining” technology. This uses machine learning algorithms to try to automatically detect any sensitive words or behaviour in digital content. Facebook could set up a system that uses this technology to identify content as potentially violent and prevent it from spreading through the network. This would provide more time for users to report the content and for Facebook’s staff to check whether it needs to be removed.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169961/original/file-20170518-12250-17is3ds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169961/original/file-20170518-12250-17is3ds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169961/original/file-20170518-12250-17is3ds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169961/original/file-20170518-12250-17is3ds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169961/original/file-20170518-12250-17is3ds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169961/original/file-20170518-12250-17is3ds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169961/original/file-20170518-12250-17is3ds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The price of free publishing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To be effective, the algorithms need to incorporate ideas from psychology and linguistics so that they can categorise different types of violent content. For example, the act of killing someone is relatively easy to designate as violent. But many other potentially violent acts involve psychological damage rather than bodily harm.</p>
<p>The algorithms would have to automatically cluster or classify messages into different levels based on their linguistic features, attaching a higher score to content with a greater likelihood of violent behaviour. Facebook staff could then use this system to more efficiently monitor content.</p>
<p>This may also allow staff to prevent violent content appearing before it is uploaded. If the system alerts staff of low-level violent speech or messages, they could step in to prevent further content being uploaded that represents actual physical violence or more severe messages.</p>
<p>If details were then passed to the police, this system could even be able to prevent the crimes occurring in the first place. For example, a government report on the public murder of British soldier Lee Rigby suggests that Facebook could have done more to stop the killers, who had discussed <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/25/lee-rigby-murder-internet-firm-could-have-picked-up-killers-message-report-says">“killing a soldier” on the site</a>.</p>
<h2>New problems</h2>
<p>This kind of machine learning algorithm has been well developed and used to report of car accidents and congestion in the CCTV footage used by transport authorities. But it’s yet to be developed for live-streamed online videos. The difficulty is that livestream video content is much harder for algorithms to analyse than videos of moving cars. But the urgent demand for content monitoring and management software should drive advances in this area. Facebook might even act as the leader in the field.</p>
<p>However, this might lead to content being monitored and even censored before it has been published. This would raise the issue of what rights Facebook has over content posted to its site, adding to <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/social-media/9780565/Facebook-terms-and-conditions-why-you-dont-own-your-online-life.html">existing controversy</a> over the way most social networks have the right to use content in almost any way they like.</p>
<p>It would also conflict with the conventional ethos of social media being a way for users to publish anything they wish (even if it may later be removed), which has been a part of the internet since its birth. It would also mean Facebook accepting <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebook-and-google-have-a-moral-duty-to-stop-online-abuse-35377">greater responsibility</a> for the content on its site than it has so far been prepared to acknowledge, making it more like a traditional publisher than a platform. And this could create a <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebooks-algorithms-give-it-more-editorial-responsibility-not-less-65182">whole new set of problems</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76221/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Honglei Li does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Text and video ‘mining’ could be used to automatically detect violent language and behaviour.Honglei Li, Senior Lecturer in Computer and Information Sciences, Northumbria University, NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/748852017-04-05T01:08:43Z2017-04-05T01:08:43ZThe unique strategy Netflix deployed to reach 90 million worldwide subscribers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163689/original/image-20170403-21966-rr9unl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1280%2C657&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The areas in red indicate where Netflix has cultivated subscribers.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Netflix_area.svg/863px-Netflix_area.svg.png">NordNordWest/Wikimedia Commons</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In just a decade, Netflix <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/01/18/netflix-shares-up-q4-subscriber-additions/96710172/">has grown</a> from a video service with seven million U.S. subscribers to one that reaches 93 million people worldwide. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/poised-to-make-its-next-big-move-netflix-isnt-in-the-business-you-think-its-in-58119">Its growth and ability to break into</a> well-established industries – first video rental, now television and film – is a rare accomplishment. In my book “<a href="http://www.amandalotz.com/portals-a-treatise-on-internetdistributed-television/">Portals: A Treatise on Internet-Distributed Television</a>,” I explore how Netflix and other internet-distributed video services forced the existing television industry to radically change its practices. </p>
<p>At the same time, many have struggled to understand Netflix’s strategy. With other services entering the video on-demand market, how has Netflix continued to evolve and build its subscriber base? </p>
<h2>The seeds of niche TV</h2>
<p>When Netflix first launched in the late 1990s, it distributed DVDs – mainly films – by mail. The convenience of the service disrupted the existing film rental industry and eventually <a href="http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2010/09/23/how-netflix-and-blockbuster-killed-blockbuster">led to its demise</a>.</p>
<p>Television, meanwhile, was experiencing a renaissance. Cable channels began running series with <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-has-tv-storytelling-become-so-complex-37442">complex storylines</a> – such as “The Sopranos” and “The Shield” – that were targeted at <a href="https://theconversation.com/fresh-off-the-boat-and-the-rise-of-niche-tv-37451">niche audiences</a>. Because many of these channels earned revenue from both subscribers and advertisers, they could be successful even if these programs didn’t reach a mass audience.</p>
<p>Then, during the early 2000s, advances in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_compression">compression technology</a> – coupled with more homes gaining access to high-speed internet services – allowed large video files to be easily streamed over the internet. </p>
<p>These developments set the technological stage for Netflix to evolve its business from DVDs by mail to a national video streaming service, which it launched in 2007.</p>
<p>Soon, television series became an integral part of its business model. By the summer of 2016, television accounted for <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/video/watch-thr-s-full-tv-918281">70 percent</a> of the service’s streaming.</p>
<h2>Different model, different strategy</h2>
<p>For years, television was distributed by <a href="http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/tv12.htm">broadcast wave</a> – a revolutionary technology that sends a wireless signal over huge swaths of the country. But broadcasting technology can send only one message at a time to everyone in its range. </p>
<p>Because video streaming services such as Netflix (what I call “portals”) deliver programming “on demand” via the internet, viewers can choose what and when to watch instead of watching “what’s on.” So where a traditional channel’s task is to develop a schedule, the key task of a portal is cultivating a library of programs. </p>
<p>This leads to different business strategies that, in turn, lead to different programs.</p>
<p>Broadcast networks and cable channels make money by selling audiences to advertisers. Netflix (and many other portals, including Amazon Video and SeeSo) are subscriber-funded: Viewers pay a monthly fee for access to the library of content. Of course, HBO has also long relied on subscribers, which explains the distinctiveness of many HBO programs, despite its distribution by cable. (<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/04/07/hbo-now-launches/25406599/">HBO launched the portal HBO Now in 2015</a> to better match its subscriber-funded revenue model with a technology that makes its library of programs available on demand.)</p>
<p>To succeed, subscriber-funded services must offer enough programming that viewers find the service worthy of their monthly fee. Each show doesn’t need a mass audience – which is the measure of success for advertiser-funded television – but the service does need to provide enough value that subscribers continue to pay.</p>
<p>Many portals provide this value by offering a very specific type of programming. For example, to justify its monthly fee, <a href="http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/wwe-network-to-launch-in-february-as-streaming-service-1201036864/">WWE Network</a> offers subscribers more access to wrestling matches and wrestling-related content than fans can watch anywhere else. Similarly, <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2015/02/25/nickelodeon-unveils-noggin-a-mobile-subscription-service-for-preschoolers-arriving-in-march/">Noggin</a>, a portal with programs for preschoolers, makes ad-free programming available for young children. </p>
<h2>Netflix’s nooks and crannies</h2>
<p>Yet Netflix doesn’t try to offer content geared to a single audience with a specific interest. Nor does it aim for a mass audience. So how does Netflix – with its 93 million subscribers – pull it off? </p>
<p>Netflix has adopted what I call a “conglomerated niche” strategy: It develops programs for a handful of – maybe a dozen – different audience interests. These include complicated serial dramas (“House of Cards”), action series (“Daredevil”), horror series (“Hemlock Grove”) and exclusive films starring a popular actor (<a href="http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15052466/adam-sandler-netflix-new-movies">Adam Sandler</a>). </p>
<p>This is possible only because internet distribution allows Netflix to serve those different audiences simultaneously and separately. Most Netflix subscribers might not even realize how many programs Netflix offers, since its subscribers usually aren’t exposed to programs that they probably won’t be interested in. </p>
<p>Netflix can also do this because internet distribution enables it to gather <a href="http://www.smartdatacollective.com/bernardmarr/312146/big-data-how-netflix-uses-it-drive-business-success">extensive data</a> about its subscribers’ behavior, which it then uses to cultivate its library and provide users with likely desired content. Netflix is notoriously tight-lipped about what data it collects, but its ability to gather viewing <a href="https://www.wired.com/2016/03/netflixs-grand-maybe-crazy-plan-conquer-world/">data from a global audience</a> has enabled the service to recognize micro-genres and then patterns of viewer interest.</p>
<p>If you were to ask different Netflix subscribers about the service’s brand, you’d likely get different responses. There is no one Netflix; rather, think of it as an expansive library with many small nooks and rooms. Most subscribers never wander floor to floor. Instead, they stay in the corner that matches their tastes. </p>
<p>Some other portals, such as Amazon Video, follow a similar strategy. But television and film streaming are a small part of the company’s overall enterprise. Hulu is both similar and different. Since Hulu is a joint venture of the companies that own Disney, NBC and Fox, its library is mostly filled with shows owned by these companies.</p>
<h2>A quest for global domination</h2>
<p>Some in the U.S. have doubted whether Netflix can maintain its market dominance based on a seeming lack of innovation and <a href="http://exstreamist.com/the-numer-of-titles-in-the-netflix-library-is-down-50-over-the-past-four-years/">erosion of its U.S. library</a> in recent years. </p>
<p>But Netflix hasn’t grown complacent. <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/01/18/netflix-shares-up-q4-subscriber-additions/96710172/">With 49 million American subscribers</a> – which makes it available in 43 percent of U.S. households – the U.S. market has less opportunity for growth. For this reason, Netflix has aggressively pivoted to stake claim as the first global television network. </p>
<p>This doesn’t mean Netflix is the same everywhere. Right now its library varies considerably because the norms of international television trade – built before internet distribution – required that distributors license shows to individual countries or regions. Netflix increasingly seeks global rights to the series it develops, which will make future additions to its library available to subscribers around the world.</p>
<p>Here, too, Netflix isn’t simply distributing shows produced for U.S. audiences. It also develops original series for subscribers in non-U.S. markets that are also available to U.S. subscribers – for example, “Marseille,” a French political drama; or “Hibana,” a Japanese drama about the country’s competitive comedy scene. As the number of subscribers from other countries has grown, so, too, has Netflix’s library of original content.</p>
<p>No television distributor has ever been able to reach a truly global audience. Netflix’s experiment as a global, subscriber-funded television portal may be the next chapter of television history.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74885/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Lotz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Netflix has seamlessly adapted to new technologies and disrupted existing business models. But unlike traditional media enterprises, Netflix has never tried to attract a mass audience.Amanda Lotz, Fellow, Peabody Media Center; Professor of Media Studies, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/720552017-02-09T03:47:09Z2017-02-09T03:47:09ZCan Facebook be sued for live-streaming suicides?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156108/original/image-20170208-17313-1692gdy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nshepard/289077373/">nshepard/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In January, two different suicides were streamed using Facebook Live, a service that allows Facebook users to create and broadcast real-time videos to their followers. At the end of the month, a third was streamed live using a different service and is still publicly available on Facebook.</p>
<p>On January 22, a 14-year-old girl <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article129120064.html">hanged herself</a> in front of about 1,000 viewers. It took nearly an hour for her to prepare, and <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article129303609.html">followers watched her body hang</a> in the bathroom where she took her life for another hour.</p>
<p>The very next day, a 33-year-old father of six told his Facebook followers that he was going to kill himself and <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-actor-death-20170124-htmlstory.html">subsequently did so</a> while live-streaming. The video remained up on his Facebook page <a href="http://www.lindaikejisblog.com/2017/01/upcoming-us-actor-jay-bowdy-commits.html">for eight hours</a>, with many users sharing it on their own pages.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"823632438391934976"}"></div></p>
<p>The following week, a popular gospel singer filmed a two-minute live video of himself drinking poison <a href="http://www.inquisitr.com/3957106/richard-nhika-suicide-video-zimbabwe-singer-posts-streaming-video-of-final-act/">after breaking up</a> with his girlfriend. People who knew him were shocked, and his suicide sparked conversation on social media about suicide prevention. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"825916390473342976"}"></div></p>
<p>This disturbing trend isn’t new. In fact, just weeks before these suicides, a 12-year-old girl created a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/01/15/a-12-year-old-girl-live-streamed-her-suicide-it-took-two-weeks-for-facebook-to-take-the-video-down/?utm_term=.fca6113e1695">40-minute live video</a> of her own suicide using the streaming app Live.me. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4111988/Katelyn-Nicole-Davis-12-livestreamed-committing-suicide-cops-t-stop-video-shared-online.html">It went viral on YouTube and Facebook</a>, and even though her family immediately deleted it, it took Facebook two weeks to scrub all traces of it from the network. </p>
<p>These streams can be damaging on a number of fronts. Could they cause <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-talk-or-not-to-talk-the-dilemma-of-suicide-contagion-46434">suicide contagion</a>, in which a suicide attempt in an online or local community raises the likelihood of more suicide attempts within that network? What about the trauma inflicted on those who watch, especially family and friends? </p>
<p>Should Facebook be legally obligated to do more to prevent these types of disturbing live broadcasts? </p>
<p><a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article128747259.html">Some see an ethical obligation for them to do so</a>. But as a law professor who researches the real-world implications of social media, I don’t believe current law requires Facebook to take any additional steps. </p>
<p>Though these types of videos are tragic and devastating, the law has evolved in a way to protect social media companies from most lawsuits. </p>
<h2>Suing for emotional harm</h2>
<p>In general, you can sue for emotional distress when you witness the death of a family member. In recent times, relatives have sued television stations that aired deaths and <a href="http://tucson.com/news/state-and-regional/lawsuit-over-broadcast-of-suicide-puts-focus-on-real-time/article_c9cb3fde-073c-5d10-97eb-3973b3bf4f4b.html">suicides</a> live on air. But it can be difficult to win these cases, even though the legal rules are well-established. </p>
<p><a href="http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1906&context=plr">Since the late 19th century</a>, the law has recognized a limited right to sue for emotional harm. However, these laws were controversial from the start because courts typically think of harm as physical in nature. Courts <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2574942">have also been skeptical</a> because emotional harm is difficult to prove and they disfavor rules with indefinite boundaries.</p>
<p>The 1968 case <a href="http://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2d/68/728.html">Dillon v. Legg</a> recognized that relatives could bring a lawsuit for emotional distress without any physical injury. After a child was hit by a car and killed, his sister and mother – who witnessed the accident – sued the car’s driver, claiming emotional distress. The court held that they could receive damages, even though they weren’t physically harmed or in danger of harming themselves. </p>
<p>The rule for this sort of claim – called “negligent infliction of emotional distress” (NIED) – <a href="http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1509&context=facultypub">generally requires that</a>: </p>
<ul>
<li>the plaintiff was near the scene of the incident;</li>
<li>the plaintiff’s observation of the incident caused significant distress;</li>
<li>the plaintiff and the victim were closely related.</li>
</ul>
<p>But this is hard to prove and often unsuccessful in cases involving media. For example, in 2015, the <a href="http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20INCO%2020150921116/CLIFTON%20v.%20McCAMMACK">Indiana Supreme Court</a> denied damages to a father who learned of the car accident that killed his son on television and then rushed to the scene. The court determined that the father could not prove NEID because he knew about the accident before arriving on the scene, did not observe any injury, blood or resuscitation efforts, and never saw his son’s body uncovered by the white sheet.</p>
<h2>Does Facebook already do its part?</h2>
<p>It isn’t clear how this applies to social media. In the <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/texas-woman-sues-facebook-revenge-porn-article-1.1887690">United States</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/09/facebook-revenge-pornography-case-could-open-floodgates">Ireland</a>, Facebook has been sued in “revenge porn” cases. One was dismissed before a decision; the other is still pending. </p>
<p>Federal law, however, probably protects social media companies like Facebook if they’re confronted with revenge porn or live suicide cases. For example, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230">Section 230</a> of the 1996 Communications Decency Act notes that providers of “interactive computer service[s]” are not the speakers or publishers of information provided by others. This means that Facebook isn’t liable for what people post, though there are exceptions for things like crime and intellectual property violations. It protects companies like Facebook from being held responsible for what it takes down or leaves up. </p>
<p>Furthermore, though it isn’t required to under the law, Facebook has created its own <a href="https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards#self-injury">community standards</a>, which prohibit “the promotion of self-injury or suicide.” It also allows users to report such posts so that it can consider whether to remove them (though Facebook is generally hesitant to take information down). Its <a href="https://qz.com/884293/a-suicide-streamed-live-exposes-facebooks-fb-thin-line-between-violence-and-public-service/">basic policy</a> “is to not remove any user content, as long as the value of public discourse outweighs the discomfort caused by said content.” </p>
<p>In addition, the social media site has voluntarily created a detailed <a href="https://www.facebook.com/help/suicideprevention">suicide prevention page</a> and a two-tiered reporting system. Viewers can report the content to Facebook directly from the post itself or through the “<a href="https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/305410456169423">Report Suicidal Content</a>” page, which implores users to contact law enforcement or a suicide hotline immediately.</p>
<h2>A slippery slope</h2>
<p>To force Facebook to change its approach, either the law must change or users must demand more corporate accountability. But changing the law to extend liability for emotional distress stemming from live-streamed suicides would open a Pandora’s box of issues. If Facebook could be sued for money damages based on live suicide posts, it could lead to countless lawsuits. This would also force the company to take drastic, and perhaps implausible, measures to protect itself by monitoring and deleting billions of posts. </p>
<p>This would raise serious, legitimate concerns about <a href="https://qz.com/777855/norway-facebook-censorship-norway-is-furious-with-facebook-and-its-algorithms-for-censoring-the-pulitzer-prize-winning-war-photo-of-a-young-girl-fleeing-a-napalm-attack-the-terror-of-war/">when censorship is appropriate</a>. As of the end of 2016, Facebook had <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/">1.86 billion monthly active users</a> worldwide. Monitoring each user’s content for acceptable information would be a monumental, if not impossible, burden. Legally requiring the company to determine when something should stay up or be removed because of the emotional distress it could inflict would seem to require Facebook to make nearly instantaneous decisions about complicated law. </p>
<p>In addition, the company could potentially be vulnerable to millions of lawsuits. Content is constantly being posted. If Facebook’s team makes any wrong calls, it could find itself responsible for significant legal damages on a number of fronts. </p>
<p>Finally, the negative impact on speech would be significant: The company would have the power to determine what posts are permissible and what posts aren’t. In the United States, <a href="https://qz.com/884293/a-suicide-streamed-live-exposes-facebooks-fb-thin-line-between-violence-and-public-service/">one bedrock legal principle</a> is protecting the free exchange of speech and ideas. Others, however, have noted that allowing nearly all speech online has <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/29/mr-obama-tear-down-this-liability-shield/">created a dangerous world</a> full of doxing, bullying and live suicide videos. </p>
<p>Live suicide videos are harrowing and alarming, and social media has made them easy to watch. Centuries-old laws related to emotional distress could not have anticipated these events that are, unfortunately, becoming more frequent. It may be impossible for Facebook to eliminate them from its site, and current law does not obligate them to do so. To prevent live-streamed suicide videos, we may have to ultimately rely on providing social media users with the tools to help prevent suicides.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72055/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Shontavia Johnson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>After witnessing a streamed suicide, users could sue for emotional harm. But it’s tricky to prove – and even trickier to hold Facebook accountable.Shontavia Johnson, Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Drake UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/722332017-02-08T04:16:55Z2017-02-08T04:16:55ZWhat Facebook Live means for journalism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155516/original/image-20170203-14022-175x247.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Facebook Live streaming after the police shooting death of Philando Castile.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/diversey/28171647206">Tony Webster</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Every week seems to bring another devastating Facebook Live video posted online. A Florida teenager <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/another-live-streamed-suicide-puts-spotlight-on-social-media-ethics-1485388656">killed herself live on the internet</a> in January. A woman in Sweden was reportedly <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/world/europe/sweden-uppsala-facebook-live-rape.html?_r=0">raped while her three attackers broadcast it</a> for hundreds to see. And video of a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/01/15/a-12-year-old-girl-live-streamed-her-suicide-it-took-two-weeks-for-facebook-to-take-the-video-down/">12-year-old girl’s suicide was broadcast on social media</a>.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, other live-video incidents – such as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/us/philando-castile-falcon-heights-shooting.html">police shootings</a> and the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/us/chicago-facebook-live-beating/">torture of a Chicago man</a> – have become key pieces of evidence and controversy in public debates about race and violence. In all, the past year saw <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/another-live-streamed-suicide-puts-spotlight-on-social-media-ethics-1485388656">at least 57 incidents of violence</a> broadcast via live video.</p>
<p>These events raise questions about the ethics and responsibilities of social media. They also point to a key media shift: Broadcasting live video used to be a complex technical feat, requiring television cameras, trucks and satellites. Today, the ubiquity of smartphones and social media has made “going live” as simple as tapping an app. The result has been a new world of live video – documenting society’s good, bad and ugly – that challenges how we think about visual information made public in an eyewitness, even journalistic fashion.</p>
<p>Here are five considerations for understanding how live-streaming services like <a href="https://live.fb.com/">Facebook Live</a> and <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/">Periscope</a> challenge journalism today.</p>
<h2>1. ‘Liveness’ and bearing witness</h2>
<p>Photos and videos have an inherent realism, which audiences associate with <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Framing-Public-Life-Perspectives-on-Media-and-Our-Understanding-of-the/Reese-Jr-Grant/p/book/9780805849264">greater authenticity</a>. Media philosopher John Durham Peters has shown how the “liveness” of audiovisual media can accentuate that sense of authenticity, by providing a means of <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016344301023006002">collective witnessing</a>. Journalists, for example, act as witnesses to events, and audiences bear witness to news broadcasts and reports.</p>
<p>In July 2016, Facebook Live exposed the <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/07/485066807/police-stop-ends-in-black-mans-death-aftermath-is-livestreamed-online-video">police killing of Philando Castile</a>. The video served to bear witness and added to the public discussion of police brutality. </p>
<p>But the Castile video also illustrated the equal parts “<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathleenchaykowski/2016/07/07/minnesota-womans-facebook-live-videos-highlight-unsolved-issues-of-social-apps-hosting-live-streams/">compelling and challenging</a>” aspects of bearing witness to live events: Videos can improve public awareness, while in some cases including material that is <a href="http://mashable.com/2016/12/30/facebook-live-porn-piracy/">graphic, pornographic or pirated</a>.</p>
<h2>2. Visually driven content</h2>
<p>Our cultural milieu, including news and social media, is increasingly visually oriented. The inclusion of a visual <a href="https://www.poynter.org/2012/new-poynter-eyetrack-research-reveals-how-people-read-news-on-tablets/191875/">increases audience attention</a>, and imagery can create <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsn048">instantaneous emotional reactions</a>. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03331011">Images are easier to recall</a> than words, and visuals can <a href="https://qz.com/772819/aylan-kurdis-tragic-death-a-year-ago-didnt-stop-us-from-staying-numb-to-the-syrian-refugee-crisis/">drive humanitarian actions</a>, though such effects are short-lived. And in a social media environment, visuals can <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/catriona-pollard/why-visual-content-is-a-s_b_7261876.html">increase engagement</a>, which is often a key objective for users.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155722/original/image-20170206-18523-ihy0ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155722/original/image-20170206-18523-ihy0ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155722/original/image-20170206-18523-ihy0ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155722/original/image-20170206-18523-ihy0ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155722/original/image-20170206-18523-ihy0ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155722/original/image-20170206-18523-ihy0ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155722/original/image-20170206-18523-ihy0ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155722/original/image-20170206-18523-ihy0ae.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Now streaming up-to-the-minute interviews with policymakers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/european_parliament/29838365390/">European Parliament</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>News organizations and social media platforms are well aware of these effects. Facebook, like other social media providers, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/catriona-pollard/why-visual-content-is-a-s_b_7261876.html">designs its interface</a> to emphasize visuals. Amid <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/mrdamian/digital-news-report-2015-selected-highlights">phenomenal growth</a> in video – YouTube has <a href="https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/">more than a billion users</a> – <a href="http://www.vox.com/videos">news</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38054235/instagram-launches-live-disappearing-video-and-changes-direct-messaging">social media</a> sites are adapting their formats and tools to capitalize, hence the development of Facebook Live. </p>
<p>While Facebook originally emphasized this feature for professionally crafted video, even <a href="http://www.recode.net/2017/1/17/14269406/facebook-live-video-deals-paid">paying publishers to go live</a>, the social network now appears to be <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/02/01/technology/ap-us-tec-facebook-live-video-push.html">aggressively pushing regular users</a> both to consume and create live videos. Facebook says live videos generate <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/02/01/technology/ap-us-tec-facebook-live-video-push.html">10 times more comments than regular ones</a>.</p>
<h2>3. Citizen reporting</h2>
<p>While news content is still largely dominated by media organizations acting as gatekeepers, the do-it-yourself information environment of social sharing means that the the press is not necessarily <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.895507">the last “gate.”</a> Audience-led forms of journalism – such as <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-does-the-zapruder-film-really-tell-us-14194/">posting videos from breaking news events</a> – are by no means new, but the widespread use of smartphone cameras and one-touch publishing has made <a href="https://theconversation.com/crisis-reporting-and-citizen-journalism-7-7-changed-the-way-we-experience-news-44369">citizen journalism</a> an almost taken-for-granted mode of the contemporary media environment.</p>
<p>Indeed, as seen in the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/search/videos/?q=%23womensmarch">women’s march</a> and airport protests against the Trump administration, to protest these days is to live-document it at the same time – extending one’s reach beyond the protest space.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DqNBSGcqt1Y?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Protesters at JFK Airport in New York, Jan. 28, 2017.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What’s particularly new is this: Social networking sites – even ones like Facebook that tend to have a more private, friends-and-family orientation – increasingly are the platform for creating and sharing user-generated news, bypassing news organizations altogether. What matters more is the “<a href="https://nyupress.org/books/9780814743508/">spreadability</a>” of user-created content.</p>
<h2>4. Live video driving news</h2>
<p>If they get enough traffic, Facebook Live videos can become objects of more formal news coverage. In effect, the social circulation itself leads to the issue being “picked up” by news organizations; that, in turn, leads to further social conversation, as in the case of Castile’s death, shot live and preserved for others to see.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mp1Zn0eweaI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Facebook Live videos can get an official response, and even professional news coverage.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This is not to say that all Facebook Live videos lead to front-page news; precious few ever will. Rather, Facebook Live videos can create a cycle in which social media videos lead to mainstream media coverage of an event or issue, generating heightened public awareness – which means more people are likely to post new live videos on that topic.</p>
<h2>5. Ethics</h2>
<p>Journalistic <a href="http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp">codes of ethics</a> emphasize seeking truth and minimizing harm. Facebook, of course, doesn’t adhere to these same ethical considerations, and, in fact, we have seen <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/12/facebook-2016-problems-fake-news-censorship">numerous ethical lapses</a> from the social media giant. What’s more, everyday folks creating Facebook Live videos do not fashion themselves as journalists – nor should they be expected to have <a href="https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/what-is-journalism/elements-journalism/">journalistic responsibilities</a> in mind.</p>
<p>But it’s worth reflecting for a moment on our collective responsibilities as Facebook users, live-streamers or not: What value are we deriving? How many thousands of people watched, reacted to and even commented on the live-streamed suicide of a 12-year-old? Are we really so desensitized? </p>
<p>Facebook begs us to become voyeurs. And while live-streamed videos can serve to enrich the human experience and educate the public, <a href="http://mashable.com/2016/12/30/facebook-live-porn-piracy/">they mostly tend to trade in the ugly and profane</a>. Are we, as the late media scholar Neil Postman famously suggested about another video medium, merely “<a href="http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/297276/amusing-ourselves-to-death-by-neil-postman/9780143036531/">amusing ourselves to death</a>” with the mundane?</p>
<h2>Final considerations</h2>
<p>Live-streamed video muddies the intersection of Facebook and journalism. Facebook has more than a billion daily active users, with <a href="http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/">66 percent of its users</a> getting news from the site. That makes it, by some accounts, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-is-the-new-gatekeeper-2016-9?">the leading news gatekeeper in the world</a>. </p>
<p>It has faced tough scrutiny, from mounting evidence of <a href="https://qz.com/779082/facebooks-censoring-of-the-iconic-napalm-girl-photo-showcases-its-disturbing-power-to-rewrite-history/">censorship</a> to its part in facilitating <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/13653026/filter-bubble-facebook-election-eli-pariser-interview">filter bubbles</a> and <a href="http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/">echo chambers</a>.</p>
<p>While Facebook has denied its role as a media company, there are indications that the platform may be reevaluating its responsibility, such as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/business/media/facebook-campbell-brown-media-fake-news.html">hiring a former journalist to lead its news partnerships team</a> and developing the <a href="https://media.fb.com/2017/01/11/facebook-journalism-project/">Facebook journalism project</a> – though critics suggest <a href="https://mondaynote.com/facebook-journalism-project-is-nothing-but-a-much-needed-pr-stunt-c756744acec1">these moves are cynical efforts at damage control</a>.</p>
<p>What’s clear is that live-streaming video via social media forces us to consider how we think about news – its speed, spread and defining influence in bearing witness to public life.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72233/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Facebook Live – and other live-video streaming services – change how we bear witness to events, and challenge how we think about visual information.Seth Lewis, Shirley Papé Chair in Electronic Media, School of Journalism and Communication, University of OregonNicole Smith Dahmen, Assistant Professor of Visual Communication, School of Journalism and Communication, University of OregonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/709412017-01-11T02:08:06Z2017-01-11T02:08:06ZFighting online trolls with bots<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152190/original/image-20170109-23473-19pq1ys.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/pic-349457981/">Troll image from shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The wonder of internet connectivity can turn into a horror show if the people who use online platforms decide that instead of connecting and communicating, they want to mock, insult, abuse, harass and even threaten each other. In online communities <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/troll">since at least the early 1990s</a>, this has been called “<a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/trolling-3815">trolling</a>.” More recently it has been called <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/cyberbullying-6691">cyberbullying</a>. It happens on many different websites and social media systems. Users have been fighting back for a while, and now the owners and managers of those online services are joining in.</p>
<p>The most recent addition to this effort comes from <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/">Twitch</a>, one of a few <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article/342888/twitch-and-beyond-the-best-video-game-live-streaming-servic">increasingly popular platforms</a> that allow gamers to play video games, stream their gameplay live online and type back and forth with people who want to watch them play. Players do this to show off their prowess (and in some cases <a href="https://dotesports.com/general/twitch-streaming-money-careers-destiny-1785">make money</a>). Game fans do this for entertainment or to learn new tips and tricks that can improve their own play.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/151899/original/image-20170105-18653-sy7qcm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/151899/original/image-20170105-18653-sy7qcm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151899/original/image-20170105-18653-sy7qcm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151899/original/image-20170105-18653-sy7qcm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151899/original/image-20170105-18653-sy7qcm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151899/original/image-20170105-18653-sy7qcm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151899/original/image-20170105-18653-sy7qcm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When spectators get involved, they can help a player out.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Saiph Savage</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Large, diverse groups of people engaging with each other online can yield interesting cooperation. For example, in one video game I helped build, people watching a stream could make <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/silentchurch">comments that would actually give the player help</a>, like slowing down or attacking enemies. But of the thousands of people tuning in daily to watch gamer <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/forsenlol">Sebastian “Forsen” Fors</a> play, for instance, at least some try to overwhelm or hijack the chat away from the subject of the game itself. This can be a mere nuisance, but can also become a serious problem, with racism, sexism and other prejudices coming to the fore in toxic and abusive comment threads.</p>
<p>In an effort to help its users fight trolling, Twitch has developed bots – software programs that can run automatically on its platform – to monitor discussions in its chats. At present, Twitch’s bots alert the game’s host, called the streamer, that someone has posted an offensive word. The streamer can then decide what action to take, such as blocking the user from the channel.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/151900/original/image-20170105-18647-v8w4rk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/151900/original/image-20170105-18647-v8w4rk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/151900/original/image-20170105-18647-v8w4rk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151900/original/image-20170105-18647-v8w4rk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151900/original/image-20170105-18647-v8w4rk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151900/original/image-20170105-18647-v8w4rk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151900/original/image-20170105-18647-v8w4rk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151900/original/image-20170105-18647-v8w4rk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trolls can share pornographic images in a chat channel, instead of having conversations about the game.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IXHSR-z8-4">Chelly Con Carne/YouTube</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Beyond just helping individual streamers manage their audiences’ behavior, this approach may be able to capitalize on the fact that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819985">online bots can help change people’s behavior</a>, as my own research has documented. For instance, a bot could approach people using racist language, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9373-5">question them about being racist</a> and suggest other forms of interaction to change how people interact with others.</p>
<h2>Using bots to affect humans</h2>
<p>In 2015 I was part of a team that created a system that uses Twitter bots to do the activist work of recruiting humans to do social good for their community. We called it <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819985">Botivist</a>.</p>
<p>We used Botivist in an experiment to find out whether bots could recruit and make people contribute ideas about tackling corruption instead of just complaining about corruption. We set up the system to watch Twitter for people complaining about corruption in Latin America, identifying the keywords “corrupcion” and “impunidad,” the Spanish words for “corruption” and “impunity.” </p>
<p>When it noticed relevant tweets, Botivist would tweet in reply, asking questions like “How do we fight corruption in our cities?” and “What should we change personally to fight corruption?” Then it waited to see if the people replied, and what they said. Of those who engaged, Botivist asked follow-up questions and asked them to volunteer to help fight the problem they were complaining about.</p>
<p>We found that Botivist was able to encourage people to go beyond simply complaining about corruption, pushing them to offer ideas and engage with others sharing their concerns. Bots could change people’s behavior! However, we also found that some individuals began debating whether – and how – bots should be involved in activism. But it nevertheless suggests that people who were comfortable engaging with bots online could be mobilized to work toward a solution, rather than just complaining about it.</p>
<p>Humans’ reactions to bots’ interventions matter, and inform how we design bots and what we tell them to do. In research at New York University in 2016, doctoral student Kevin Munger <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9373-5">used Twitter bots to engage with people expressing racist views</a> online. Calling out Twitter users for racist behavior ended up reducing those users’ racist communications over time – if the bot doing the chastising appeared to be a white man with a large number of followers, two factors that conferred social status and power. If the bot had relatively few followers or was a black man, its interventions were not measurably successful.</p>
<h2>Raising additional questions</h2>
<p>Bots’ abilities to affect how people act toward each other online brings up important issues our society needs to address. A key question is: What types of behaviors should bots encourage or discourage?</p>
<p>It’s relatively benign for bots to notify humans about specifically hateful or dangerous words – and let the humans decide what to do about it. Twitch lets streamers decide for themselves whether they want to use the bots, as well as what (if anything) to do if the bot alerts them to a problem. Users’ decisions not to use the bots include both technological factors and concerns about comments. In conversations I have seen among Twitch streamers, some have described disabling them for causing interference with browser add-ons they already use to manage their audience chat space. Other streamers have disabled the bots because they feel bots hinder audience participation.</p>
<p>But it could be alarming if we ask bots to influence people’s free expression of genuine feelings or thoughts. Should bots monitor language use on all online platforms? What should these “bot police” look out for? How should the bots – which is to say, how should the people who design the bots – handle those Twitch streamers who appear to enjoy engaging with trolls? </p>
<p>One Twitch streamer posted a <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitch/comments/45tutp/whats_your_favorite_being_a_streamer_insult/d013zjl/">positive view of trolls on Reddit</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“…lmfao! Trolls make it interesting […] I sometimes troll back if I’m in a really good mood […] I get similar comments all of the time…sometimes I laugh hysterically and lose focus because I’m tickled…”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Other streamers even enjoy <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitch/comments/45tutp/whats_your_favorite_being_a_streamer_insult/">sharing their witty replies</a> to trolls:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“…My favorite was someone telling me in Rocket League "I hope every one of your followers unfollows you after that match.” My response was “My mom would never do that!” Lol…"</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What about streamers who actually want to make racist or sexist comments to their audiences? What if their audiences respond positively to those remarks? Should a bot monitor a player’s behavior on his own channel against standards set by someone else, such as the platform’s administrators? And what language should the bots watch for – racism, perhaps, but what about ideas that are merely unpopular, rather than socially damaging?</p>
<p>At present, we don’t have ways of thinking about, talking about or deciding on these balancing acts of freedom of expression and association online. In the offline world, people are free to say racist things to willing audiences, but suffer social consequences if they do so around people who object. As bots become more able to participate in, and exert influence on, our human interactions, we’ll need to decide who sets the standards and how, as well as who enforces them, in online communities.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70941/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Saiph Savage does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Automated systems that watch online chats and flag racist, sexist and bullying behavior could help curtail internet abuse.Saiph Savage, Assistant Professor of Computer Science, West Virginia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.