About Frédéric Filloux

Posts by Frédéric Filloux:

The Need for a Digital “New Journalism”

 

The survival of quality news calls for a new approach to writing and reporting. Inspiration could come from blogging and magazine storytelling and also bring back memories of the 70’s New Journalism movement. 

News reporting is aging badly. Legacy newsrooms style books look stuck in a last Century formalism (I was tempted to write “formalin“). Take a newspaper, print or online. When it comes news reporting, you see the same old structure dating back to the Fifties or even earlier. For the reporter, there is the same (affected) posture of effacing his/her personality behind facts, and a stiff structure based on a string of carefully arranged paragraphs, color elements, quotes, etc.

I hate useless quotes. Most often, for journalists, such quotes are the equivalent of the time-card hourly workers have to punch. To their editor, the message is ‘Hey, I did my my job; I called x, y, z’ ; and to the  the reader, ‘Look, I’m humbly putting my personality, my point of view behind facts as stated by these people’ — people picked by him/herself, which is the primary (and unavoidable) way to twist a story. The result becomes borderline ridiculous when, after a lengthy exposé in the reporter’s voice to compress the sources’ convoluted thoughts, the line of reasoning concludes with a critical validation such as :

“Only time will tell”, said John Smith, director of the social studies at the University of Kalamazoo, consultant for the Rand Corporation, and author of “The Cognitive Deficit of Hyperactive Chimpanzees”. 

I’m barely making this up. Each time I open a carbon-based newspaper (or read its online version), I’m stuck by how old-fashioned news writing remains. Unbeknownst to the masthead (i.e. editorial top decision-makers) of legacy media, things have changed. Readers no longer demand validating quotes that weigh the narrative down. They want to be taken from A to B, with the best possible arguments, and no distraction or wasted time.

Several factors dictate an urgent evolution in the way newspapers are written.

1/ Readers’ Time Budget. People are deluged with things to read. It begins at 7:00 in the morning and ends up late into the night. The combination of professional contents (mail, reports, PowerPoint presentations) and social networking feeds, have put traditional and value-added contents (news, books) under great pressure. Multiple devices and the variable level of attention that each of them entails create more complications: a publishing house can’t provide the same content for a smartphone screen to be read in a cramped subway as for a tablet used in lean-back mode at home. More than ever, the publisher is expected to clearly arbitrate between the content that is to be provided in a concise form and the one that justifies a long, elaborate narrative. The same applies to linking and multi-layer constructs: reading a story that opens several browser tabs on a 22-inch screen is pleasant — and completely irrelevant for quick lunchtime mobile reading.

2/ Trust factor / The contract with the Brand. When I pick a version of The New York Times, The Guardian, or a major French newspaper, this act materializes my trust (and hope) in the professionalism associated with the brand. In a more granular way, it works the same for the writer. Some are notoriously sloppy, biased, or agenda-driven; others are so good than they became a brand by themselves. My point: When I read a byline I trust, I assume the reporter has performed the required legwork — that is collecting five or ten times the amount of information s/he will use in the end product. I don’t need the reporting to be proven or validated by an editing construct that harks back to the previous century. Quotes will be used only for the relevant opinion of a source, or to make a salient point, not as a feeble attempt to prove professionalism or fairness.

3 / Competition from the inside. Strangely enough, newspapers have created their own gauge to measure their obsolescence. By encouraging their writing staff to blog, they unleashed new, more personal, more… modern writing practices. Fact is, many journalists became more interesting on their own blogs than in their dedicated newspaper or magazine sections. Again, this trend evaded many editors and publishers who consider blogging to be a secondary genre, one that can be put outside a paywall, for instance. (This results in a double whammy: not only doesn’t the paper cash on blogs, but it also frustrates paid-for subscribers).

4/ The influence of magazine writing. Much better than newspapers, magazines have always done a good job capturing readers’ preferences. They’ve have always been ahead in market research, graphic design, concept and writing evolution. (This observations also applies to the weekend magazines operated by large dailies). As an example, magazine writers have been quick to adopt first person accounts that rejuvenated journalism and allowed powerful narrative. In many newspapers, authors and their editors still resists this.

Digital media needs to invent its own journalistic genres. (Note the plural, dictated by the multiplicity of usages and vectors). The web and its mobile offspring, are calling for their own New Journalism comparable to the one that blossomed in the Seventies. While the blogosphere has yet to find its Tom Wolfe, the newspaper industry still has a critical role to play: It could be at the forefront of this essential evolution in journalism. Failure to do so will only accelerate its decline.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

The Google Fund for the French Press

 

At the last minute, ending three months of  tense negotiations, Google and the French Press hammered a deal. More than yet another form of subsidy, this could mark the beginning of a genuine cooperation.

Thursday night, at 11:00pm Paris time, Marc Schwartz, the mediator appointed by the French government got a call from the Elysée Palace: Google’s chairman Eric Schmidt was en route to meet President François Hollande the next day in Paris. They both intended to sign the agreement between Google and the French press the Friday at 6:15pm. Schwartz, along with Nathalie Collin, the chief representative for the French Press, were just out of a series of conference calls between Paris and Mountain view: Eric Schmidt and Google’s CEO Larry Page had green-lighted the deal. At 3 am on Friday, the final draft of the memorandum was sent to Mountain View. But at 11:00am everything had to be redone: Google had made unacceptable changes, causing Schwartz and Collin to  consider calling off the signing ceremony at the Elysée. Another set of conference calls ensued. The final-final draft, unanimously approved by the members of the IPG association (General and Political Information), was printed at 5:30pm, just in time for the gathering at the Elysée half an hour later.

The French President François Hollande was in a hurry, too: That very evening, he was bound to fly to Mali where the French troops are waging as small but uncertain war to contain Al-Qaeda’s expansion in Africa. Never shy of political calculations, François Hollande seized the occasion to be seen as the one who forced Google to back down. As for Google’s chairman, co-signing the agreement along with the French President was great PR. As a result, negotiators from the Press were kept in the dark until Eric Schmidt’s plane landed in Paris Friday afternoon and before heading to the Elysée. Both men underlined what  they called “a world premiere”, a “historical deal”…

This agreement ends — temporarily — three months of difficult negotiations. Now comes the hard part.

According to Google’s Eric Schmidt, the deal is built on two stages:

“First, Google has agreed to create a €60 million Digital Publishing Innovation Fund to help support transformative digital publishing initiatives for French readers. Second, Google will deepen our partnership with French publishers to help increase their online revenues using our advertising technology.”

As always, the devil lurks in the details, most of which will have to be ironed over the next two months.

The €60m ($82m) fund will be provided by Google over a three-year period; it will be dedicated to new-media projects. About 150 websites members of the IPG association will be eligible for submission. The fund will be managed by a board of directors that will include representatives from the Press, from Google as well as independent experts. Specific rules are designed to prevent conflicts of interest. The fund will most likely be chaired by the Marc Schwartz, the mediator, also partner at the global audit firm Mazars (all parties praised him for his mediation and wish him to take the job).

Turning to the commercial part of the pact, it is less publicized but at least as equally important as the fund itself. In a nutshell, using a wide array of tools ranging from advertising platforms to content distribution systems, Google wants to increase its business with the Press in France and elsewhere in Europe. Until now, publishers have been reluctant to use such tools because they don’t want to increase their reliance on a company they see as cold-blooded and ruthless.

Moving forward, the biggest challenge will be overcoming an extraordinarily high level distrust on both sides. Google views the Press (especially the French one) as only too eager to “milk” it, and unwilling to genuinely cooperate in order to build and share value from the internet. The engineering-dominated, data-driven culture of the search engine is light-years away from the convoluted “political” approach of legacy media that don’t understand or look down on the peculiar culture of tech companies.

Dealing with Google requires a mastery of two critical elements: technology (with the associated economics), and the legal aspect. Contractually speaking, it means transparency and enforceability. Let me explain.

Google is a black box. For good and bad reasons, it fiercely protects the algorithms that are key to squeezing money from the internet, sometimes one cent at a time — literally. If Google consents to a cut of, say, advertising revenue derived from a set of contents, the partner can’t really ascertain whether the cut truly reflects the underlying value of the asset jointly created – or not. Understandably, it bothers most of Google’s business partners: they are simply asked to be happy with the monthly payment they get from Google, no questions asked. Specialized lawyers I spoke with told me there are ways to prevent such opacity. While it’s futile to hope Google will lift the veil on its algorithms, inserting an audit clause in every contract can be effective; in practical terms, it means an independent auditor can be appointed to verify specific financial records pertaining to a business deal.

Another key element: From a European perspective, a contract with Google is virtually impossible to enforce. The main reason: Google won’t give up on the Governing Law of a contract that is to be “Litigated exclusively in the Federal or States Courts of Santa Clara County, California”. In other words: Forget about suing Google if things go sour. Your expensive law firm based in Paris, Madrid, or Milan will try to find a correspondent in Silicon Valley, only to be confronted with polite rebuttals: For years now, Google has been parceling out multiples pieces of litigation among local law firms simply to make them unable to litigate against it. Your brave European lawyer will end up finding someone that will ask several hundreds thousands dollars only to prepare but not litigate the case. The only way to prevent this is to put an arbitration clause in every contract. Instead of going before a court of law, the parties agrees to mediate the matter through a private tribunal. Attorneys say it offers multiples advantages: It’s faster, much cheaper, the terms of the settlement are confidential, and it carries the same enforceability as a Court order.

Google (and all the internet giants for that matter) usually refuses an arbitration clause as well as the audit provision mentioned earlier. Which brings us to a critical element: In order to develop commercial relations with the Press, Google will have to find ways to accept collective bargaining instead of segmenting negotiations one company at a time. Ideally, the next round of discussions should come up with a general framework for all commercial dealings. That would be key to restoring some trust between the parties. For Google, it means giving up some amount of tactical as well as strategic advantage… that is part of its long-term vision. As stated by Eric Schmidt in its upcoming book “The New Digital Age” (the Wall Street Journal had access to the galleys) :

“[Tech companies] will also have to hire more lawyers. Litigation will always outpace genuine legal reform, as any of the technology giants fighting perpetual legal battles over intellectual property, patents, privacy and other issues would attest.”

European media are warned: they must seriously raise their legal game if they want to partner with Google — and the agreement signed last Friday in Paris could help.

Having said that, I personally believe it could be immensely beneficial for digital media to partner with Google as much as possible. This company spends roughly two billion dollars a year refining its algorithms and improving its infrastructure. Thousands of engineers work on it. Contrast this with digital media: Small audiences, insufficient stickiness, low monetization plague both web sites and mobile apps; the advertising model for digital information is mostly a failure — and that’s not Google’s fault. The Press should find a way to capture some of Google’s technical firepower and concentrate on what it does best: producing original, high quality contents, a business that Google is unwilling (and probably culturally unable) to engage in. Unlike Apple or Amazon, Google is relatively easy to work with (once the legal hurdles are cleared).

Overall, this deal is a good one. First of all, both sides are relieved to avoid a law (see last Monday Note Google vs. the press: avoiding the lose-lose scenario). A law declaring that snippets and links are to be paid-for would have been a serious step backward.

Second, it’s a departure from the notion of “blind subsidies” that have been plaguing the French Press for decades. Three months ago, the discussion started with irreconcilable positions: publishers were seeking absurd amounts of money (€70m per year, the equivalent of IPG’s members total ads revenue) and Google was focused on a conversion into business solutions. Now, all the people I talked to this weekend seem genuinely supportive of building projects, boosting innovation and also taking advantage of Google’s extraordinary engineering capabilities. The level of cynicism often displayed by the Press is receding.

Third, Google is changing. The fact that Eric Schmidt and Larry Page jumped in at the last minute to untangle the deal shows a shift of perception towards media. This agreement could be seen as a template for future negotiations between two worlds that still barely understand each other.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

Google vs. the press: avoiding the lose-lose scenario

 

Google and the French press have been negotiating for almost three months now. If there is no agreement within ten days, the government is determined to intervene and pass a law instead. This would mean serious damage for both parties. 

An update about the new corporate tax system. Read this story in Forbes by the author of the report quoted below 

Since last November, about twice a week and for several hours, representatives from Google and the French press have been meeting behind closed doors. To ease up tensions, an experienced mediator has been appointed by the government. But mistrust and incomprehension still plague the discussions, and the clock is ticking.

In the currently stalled process, the whole negotiation revolves around cash changing hands. Early on, representatives of media companies where asking Google to pay €70m ($93m) per year for five years. This would be “compensation” for “abusively” indexing and linking their contents and for collecting 20 words snippets (see a previous Monday Note: The press, Google, its algorithm, their scale.) For perspective, this €70m amount is roughly the equivalent to the 2012 digital revenue of newspapers and newsmagazines that constitutes the IPG association (General and Political Information).

When the discussion came to structuring and labeling such cash transfer, IPG representatives dismissively left the question to Google: “Dress it up!”, they said. Unsurprisingly, Google wasn’t ecstatic with this rather blunt approach. Still, the search engine feels this might be the right time to hammer a deal with the press, instead of perpetuating a latent hostility that could later explode and cost much more. At least, this is how Google’s European team seems to feel. (In its hyper-centralized power structure, management in Mountain View seems slow to warm up to the idea.)

In Europe, bashing Google is more popular than ever. Not only just Google, but all the US-based internet giants, widely accused of killing old businesses (such as Virgin Megastore — a retail chain that also made every possible mistake). But the actual core issue is tax avoidance. Most of these companies hired the best tax lawyers money can buy and devised complex schemes to avoid paying corporate taxes in EU countries, especially UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy…  The French Digital Advisory Board — set up by Nicolas Sarkozy and generally business-friendly — estimated last year that Google, Amazon, Apple’s iTunes and Facebook had a combined revenue of €2.5bn – €3bn but each paid only on average €4m in corporate taxes instead of €500m (a rough 20% to 25% tax rate estimate). At a time of fiscal austerity, most governments see this (entirely legal) tax avoidance as politically unacceptable. In such context, Google is the target of choice. In the UK for instance, Google made £2.5bn (€3bn or $4bn) in 2011, but paid only £6m (€7.1m or $9.5m) in corporate taxes. To add insult to injury, in an interview with The Independent, Google’s chairman Eric Schmidt defended his company’s tax strategy in the worst possible manner:

“I am very proud of the structure that we set up. We did it based on the incentives that the governments offered us to operate. It’s called capitalism. We are proudly capitalistic. I’m not confused about this.”

Ok. Got it. Very helpful.

Coming back to the current negotiation about the value of the click, the question was quickly handed over to Google’s spreadsheet jockeys who came up with the required “dressing up”. If the media accepted the use of the full range of Google products, additional value would be created for the company. Then, a certain amount could be derived from said value. That’s the basis for a deal reached last year with the Belgium press (the agreement is shrouded in a stringent confidentiality clause.)

Unfortunately, the French press began to eliminate most of the eggs in the basket, one after the other, leaving almost nothing to “vectorize” the transfer of cash. Almost three months into the discussion, we are stuck with antagonistic positions. The IPG representatives are basically saying: We don’t want to subordinate ourselves further to Google by adopting opaque tools that we can find elsewhere. Google retorts: We don’t want to be considered as another deep-pocketed “fund” that the French press will tap forever into without any return for our businesses; plus, we strongly dispute any notion of “damages” to be paid for linking to media sites. Hence the gap between the amount of cash asked by one side and what is (reluctantly) acceptable on the other.

However, I think both parties vastly underestimate what they’ll lose if they don’t settle quickly.

The government tax howitzer is loaded with two shells. The first one is a bill (drafted by no one else than IPG’s counsel, see PDF here), which introduces the disingenuous notion of “ancillary copyright”. Applied to the snippets Google harvests by the thousands every day, it creates some kind of legal ground to tax it the hard way. This montage is adapted from the music industry in which the ancillary copyright levy ranges from 4% to 7% of the revenue generated by a sector or a company. A rate of 7% for the revenue officially declared by Google in France (€138m) would translate into less than €10m, which is pocket change for a company that in fact generates about €1.5 billion from its French operations.

That’s where the second shell could land. Last Friday, the Ministry of Finances released a report on the tax policy applied to the digital economy  titled “Mission d’expertise sur la fiscalité de l’économie numérique” (PDF here). It’s a 200 pages opus, supported by no less than 600 footnotes. Its authors, Pierre Collin and Nicolas Colin are members of the French public elite (one from the highest jurisdiction, le Conseil d’Etat, the other from the equivalent of the General Accounting Office — Nicolas Colin being  also a former tech entrepreneur and a writer). The Collin & Colin Report, as it’s now dubbed, is based on a set of doctrines that also come to the surface in the United States (as demonstrated by the multiple references in the report).

To sum up:
— The core of the digital economy is now the huge amount of data created by users. The report categorizes different types of data: “Collected Data”, are  gathered through cookies, wether the user allows it or not. Such datasets include consumer behaviors, affiliations, personal information, recommendations, search patterns, purchase history, etc.  “Submitted Data” are entered knowingly through search boxes, forms, timelines or feeds in the case of Facebook or Twitter. And finally, “Inferred Data” are byproducts of various processing, analytics, etc.
— These troves of monetized data are created by the free “work” of users.
— The location of such data collection is independent from the place where the underlying computer code is executed: I create a tangible value for Amazon or Google with my clicks performed in Paris, while the clicks are processed in a  server farm located in Netherlands or in the United Sates — and most of the profits land in a tax shelter.
— The location of the value insofar created by the “free work” of users is currently dissociated from the location of the tax collection. In fact, it escapes any taxation.

Again, I’m quickly summing up a lengthy analysis, but the conclusion of the Collin & Colin report is obvious: Sooner or later, the value created and the various taxes associated to it will have to be reconciled. For Google, the consequences would be severe: Instead of €138m of official revenue admitted in France, the tax base would grow to €1.5bn revenue and about €500m profit; that could translate €150m in corporate tax alone instead of the mere €5.5m currently paid by Google. (And I’m not counting the 20% VAT that would also apply.)

Of course, this intellectual construction will be extremely difficult to translate into enforceable legislation. But the French authorities intend to rally other countries and furiously lobby the EU Commission to comer around to their view. It might takes years, but it could dramatically impact Google’s economics in many countries.

More immediately, for Google, a parliamentary debate over the Ancillary Copyright will open a Pandora’s box. From the Right to the Left, encouraged by François Hollande‘s administration, lawmakers will outbid each other in trashing the search engine and beyond that, every large internet company.

As for members the press, “They will lose too”, a senior official tells me. First, because of the complications in setting up the machinery the Ancillary Copyright Act would require, they will have to wait about two years before getting any dividends. Two, the governments — the present one as well as the past Sarkozy administration  — have always been displeased with what they see as the the French press “addiction to subsidies”; they intend to drastically reduce the €1.5bn in public aid. If the press gets is way through a law,  according to several administration officials, the Ministry of Finances will feel relieved of its obligations towards media companies that don’t innovate much despite large influxes of public money. Conversely, if the parties are able to strike a decent business deal on their own, the French Press will quickly get some “compensation” from of Google and might still keep most of its taxpayer subsidies.

As for the search giant, it will indeed have to stand a small stab but, for a while, will be spared the chronic pain of a long and costly legislative fight — and the contagion that goes with it: The French bill would be dissected by neighboring governments who will be only too glad to adapt and improve it.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com   

Next week: When dealing with Google, better use a long spoon; Why European media should rethink their approach to the search giant.

Linking: Scraping vs. Copyright

 

Irish newspapers created quite a stir when they demanded a fee for incoming links to their content. Actually, this is a mere prelude to a much more crucial debate on copyrights,  robotic scraping and subsequent synthetic content re-creation from scraps. 

The controversy erupted on December 30th, when an attorney from the Irish law firm McGarr Solicitors exposed the case of one of its client, the Women’s Aid organization, being asked to pay a fee to Irish newspapers for each link they send to them. The main quote from McGarr’s post:

They wrote to Women’s Aid, (amongst others) who became our clients when they received letters, emails and phone calls asserting that they needed to buy a licence because they had linked to articles in newspapers carrying positive stories about their fundraising efforts.
These are the prices for linking they were supplied with:

1 – 5 €300.00
6 – 10 €500.00
11 – 15 €700.00
16 – 25 €950.00
26 – 50 €1,350.00
50 + Negotiable

They were quite clear in their demands. They told Women’s Aid “a licence is required to link directly to an online article even without uploading any of the content directly onto your own website.”

Recap: The Newspapers’ agent demanded an annual payment from a women’s domestic violence charity because they said they owned copyright in a link to the newspapers’ public website.

Needless to say, the twittersphere, the blogosphere and, by and large, every self-proclaimed cyber moral authority, reacted in anger to Irish newspapers’ demands that go against common sense as well as against the most basic business judgement.

But on closer examination, the Irish dead tree media (soon to be dead for good if they stay on that path) is just the tip of the iceberg for an industry facing issues that go well beyond its reluctance to the culture of web links.

Try googling the following French legalese: “A défaut d’autorisation, un tel lien pourra être considéré comme constitutif du délit de contrefaçon”. (It means any unauthorized incoming link to a site will be seen as a copyright infringement.) This search get dozens of responses. OK, most come from large consumers brands (carmakers, food industry, cosmetics) who don’t want a link attached to an unflattering term sending the reader to their product description… Imagine lemon linked to a car brand.

Until recently, you couldn’t find many media companies invoking such a no-link policy. Only large TV networks such as TF1 or M6 warn that any incoming link is subject to a written approval.

In reality, except for obvious libel, no-links policies are rarely enforced. M6 Television even lost a court case against a third party website that was deep-linking to its catch-up programs. As for the Irish newspapers, despite their dumb rate card for links, they claimed to be open to “arrangements” (in the ill-chosen case of a non-profit organization fighting violence against women, flexibility sounds like a good idea.)

Having said that, such posture reflects a key fact: Traditional media, newspapers or broadcast media, send contradictory messages when it comes to links that are simply not part of their original culture.

The position paper of the National Newspapers of Ireland association’s deserves a closer look (PDF here). It actually contains a set of concepts that resonate with the position defended by the European press in its current dispute with Google (see background story in the NYTimes); here are a few:

– It is the view of NNI that a link to copyright material does constitute infringement of copyright, and would be so found by the Courts.
– [NNI then refers to a decision of the UK court of Appeal in a case involving Meltwater Holding BV, a company specialized in media monitoring], that upheld the findings of the High Court which findings included:
– that headlines are capable of being independent literary works and so copying just a headline can infringe copyright
– that text extracts (headline plus opening sentence plus “hit” sentence) can be substantial enough to benefit from copyright protection
– that an end user client who receives a paid for monitoring report of search results (incorporating a headline, text extract and/or link, is very likely to infringe copyright unless they have a licence from the
Newspaper Licencing Agency or directly from a publisher.
— NNI proposes that, in fact, any amendment to the existing copyright legislation with regard to deep-linking should specifically provide that deep-linking to content protected by copyright without respect for  the linked website’s terms and conditions of use and without regard for the publisher’s legitimate commercial interest in protecting its own copyright is unlawful.

Let’s face it, most publishers I know would not disagree with the basis of such statements. In the many jurisdictions where a journalist’s most mundane work is protected by copyright laws, what can be seen as acceptable in terms of linking policy?

The answer seems to revolve around matters of purpose and volume.

To put it another way, if a link serves as a kind of helper or reference, publishers will likely tolerate it. (In due fairness, NNI explicitly “accepts that linking for personal use is a part of how individuals communicate online and has no issue with that” — even if the notion of “personal use” is pretty vague.) Now, if the purpose is commercial and if linking is aimed at generating traffic, NNI raises the red flag (even though legal grounds are rather brittle.) Hence the particular Google case that also carries a notion of volume as the search engine claims to harvest thousands of sources for its Google News service.

There is a catch. The case raised by NNI and its putative followers is weakened by a major contradiction: everywhere, Ireland included, news websites invest a great deal of resources in order to achieve the highest possible rank in Google News. Unless specific laws are voted (German lawmakers are working on such a bill), attorneys will have hard time invoking copyright infringements that in fact stem for the very Search Engine Optimization tactics publishers encourage.

But there might be more at stake. For news organizations, the future carries obvious threats that require urgent consideration: In coming years, we’ll see great progress — so to speak — in automated content production systems. With or without link permissions, algorithmic content generators will be able (in fact: are) to scrap sites’original articles, aggregate and reprocess those into seemingly original content, without any mention, quotation, links, or reference of any kind. What awaits the news industry is much more complex than dealing with links from an aggregator.

It boils down to this: The legal debate on linking as copyright infringement will soon be obsolete. The real question will emerge as a much more complex one: Should a news site protect itself from being “read”  by a robot? The consequences for doing so are stark: except for a small cohort of loyal readers, the site would purely and simply vanish from cyberspace… Conversely, by staying open to searches, the site exposes itself to forms of automated and stealthy depletion that will be virtually impossible to combat. Is the situation binary — allowing “bots” or not — or is there middle ground? That’s a fascinating playground for lawyers and techies, for parsers of words and bits.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com