Who Decides What We See?
When trust, choice and free expression pull in different directions
One of the internet’s greatest strengths has always been choice.
For years, we’ve been able to decide for ourselves where we get our news, whose opinions we listen to and which creators deserve our time. That freedom has allowed established organisations and independent voices to compete for attention on the same platforms.
Recent proposals by the UK Government have prompted a wider conversation about whether some recognised news organisations should receive greater prominence on online platforms. The Government says the aim is to make trusted information easier to find and to help tackle misinformation. Many people will see that as a sensible and responsible objective.
Others have asked a different question.
If some organisations are given greater prominence, what does that mean for everyone else?
As someone who is preparing to build a YouTube channel, I find myself thinking about this from a personal perspective. Independent creators rarely begin with large audiences or recognised names. They grow because viewers discover their work, decide it has value and choose to return.
If future rules change how information is presented, I naturally wonder whether that could make it more difficult for new creators to be discovered.
I don’t know that it will.
Equally, I don’t know that it won’t.
That uncertainty is why I believe the discussion is worth having.
This isn’t simply a debate about YouTube.
It’s a broader question about how we balance two important principles.
On one hand, society benefits when reliable information is easy to find, particularly during emergencies or when false information can cause real harm.
On the other hand, open societies also benefit when independent journalists, educators, researchers, charities and creators have a fair opportunity to reach people through the quality of their work rather than the size or status of the organisation they represent.
Neither principle should be dismissed.
Finding the right balance is difficult.
History reminds us that many respected voices started with nothing more than an idea and the opportunity to share it. Their reputation wasn’t granted in advance; it was earned over time through accuracy, consistency and the trust of their audience.
Perhaps that principle is worth protecting.
As creators, there may also be another lesson.
No matter what governments decide or how platforms evolve, it is probably unwise to build everything on a single website or algorithm. Policies change. Technology changes. Platforms change.
The most valuable audience is the one that chooses to follow your work because it trusts your judgement, not because an algorithm happened to recommend it.
Whether these proposals ultimately improve access to reliable information or create new challenges for independent voices remains to be seen.
Time will provide a clearer answer than speculation ever can.
For now, I believe the important thing is that these conversations remain open, respectful and evidence-based. Public policy affects everyone, and thoughtful discussion is one of the healthiest ways a democracy tests new ideas.
This article reflects my personal views on a matter of public policy based on information that is publicly available. I encourage everyone, whatever their viewpoint, to read the proposals for themselves, consider different perspectives and reach their own conclusions.
Join the Conversation
I’d genuinely like to hear your thoughts.
How should we balance helping people find trusted information with ensuring independent voices continue to have a fair opportunity to be discovered?
Please share your perspective in the comments. Respectful disagreement is always welcome.
If this article gave you something to think about, consider subscribing to The 3rd Act. Every week I explore the ideas behind today’s headlines, looking beyond the immediate story to examine the questions that may shape our future.
If you know someone who would enjoy this conversation, please share it with them. Independent publications grow because readers choose to recommend them.
Thank you for reading.