The Media Industry and the Proof of Technocracy

How much longer is it before our service providers supersede the law- or are we already here?

In the digital age, one would expect as technology develops that the capabilities and sovereignty of individuals also increase. However, it is interesting to observe that, in many cases, we can see us forming dependencies upon centralized providers.

And the media industry shows us how these providers have already circumvented legislation, establishing their Terms of Service as the Law.

When Platforms Become Governments

The world has watched this transformation firsthand over the past decade. What started as tools to empower creators has morphed into something entirely different.

These platforms don't just host content anymore—they govern it.

They decide who gets paid, what gets seen, and who gets silenced. And they do it all without courts, without due process, and often without any real accountability to the people they're governing.

The most fascinating part? We all just... accepted it.

YouTube's Shadow Legal System

Let's start with YouTube, because their approach to copyright perfectly illustrates how platform law has replaced actual law.

YouTube operates two systems that most creators don't even realize are different:

Content ID is an automated scanner. It's not legal. It's not a court. It's just an algorithm that matches content and decides your fate in seconds.

Copyright strikes sound legal, right? They use legal-sounding language, reference the DMCA, and threaten account termination. But here's the thing—most of these "strikes" are just administrative actions by a private company.

The Licensing Scam

Here's where it gets really absurd.

You can license a track legally. Pay for sync rights. Have everything documented and legitimate. Upload your video...

And Content ID will still flag you.

Why? Because the system doesn't recognize legal licensing. It only recognizes its own database of claims. Multiple parties can claim the same content. Metadata gets confused. The algorithm doesn't care about your paperwork.

I've seen musicians get flagged for using their own original compositions because someone else uploaded the same track first and claimed it.

The platform's logic supersedes legal reality.

AI Companies: Rewriting Law in Real Time

The AI industry has taken this even further. They've essentially said: "We're going to use everyone's copyrighted work to train our models, and we'll figure out the legal justification later."

And somehow, it's working.

OpenAI, Google, Meta—they've all admitted to training on copyrighted material without permission. Their defense? "Fair use." But fair use is determined by courts, not by corporate PR departments. Even as the litigation around this matter is being determined, the possibility for agreements to be made with only the biggest names is likely. We have seen it all before...

The Feasibility Argument

Here's my favorite part of their strategy:

When confronted about licensing content, AI executives routinely claim it's "not feasible" to get permission from every rights holder.

Think about that logic for a second.

"Your honor, following the law would be inconvenient for our business model."

And somehow, this argument is gaining traction in courtrooms and legislative hearings.

Spotify's Economic Engineering

Spotify represents perhaps the most sophisticated example of platform governance masquerading as market forces.

Their 2024 policy change excludes tracks with fewer than 1,000 annual streams from earning any royalties at all.

Let that sink in.

999 streams = $0. 1,000 streams = a few cents.

This isn't market-driven. It's not based on listener preferences or artistic merit. It's an arbitrary threshold that redirects money from independent artists to major label content.

The Mathematics of Exploitation

Want to know what streaming pays? Here's the reality:

To earn $1000, you need roughly 250,000-330,000 streams.

A million streams—once considered massive success—now pays about $3,000-5,000 total. Before you split it with collaborators, distributors, and platforms.

Most successful independent artists would earn more working part-time at McDonald's.

The Napster Lesson

Remember when Napster was the villain? The music industry fought tooth and nail to shut down "piracy."

Here's what actually happened to music revenue:

1999: $21 billion in US music revenue (peak of CD era) 2014: $7 billion (the bottom—a 67% collapse) 2022: $26.2 billion globally (recovery, but...)

But here's the thing about the piracy era that nobody talks about:

Pirates still bought music they loved.

People shared files for convenience and discovery. They'd download albums to try them out, then purchase physical copies of the ones that mattered to them. As one former Napster user put it: "I also felt I was still investing in the industry legitimately, as I was still buying albums."

The piracy was often about access—getting imports, rarities, or music not available locally. Import singles cost $15 at Tower Records for essentially one song and some remixes. Fans turned to file-sharing because the industry offered no reasonable alternatives.

Compare that to streaming:

Users think they're doing the "right thing" by paying for Spotify. They feel righteous about their $10 monthly subscription.

But that righteousness is being weaponized against artists.

Streaming pays worse than piracy ever did.

At least when someone pirated your album, they might still buy a copy if they loved it. Streaming users never buy anything—they think their subscription covers it.

The industry replaced a system where fans discovered music through sharing but still purchased favorites with a system where fans pay platforms while artists get virtually nothing.

We went from piracy with purchases to legal exploitation with corporate profits.

Artists have been forced to treat their recordings as marketing materials for live shows and merchandise. The actual creative work—the songs themselves—have become worthless.

Unless you're touring constantly, you can't survive as a musician anymore.

Terms of Service = Law

Here's what really happened:

Platforms created their own legal systems.

They write Terms of Service that function as constitutions. They establish enforcement mechanisms that act as courts. They issue punishments that affect real people's livelihoods.

And users have no meaningful recourse.

When YouTube demonetizes your channel, you can appeal. But you're appealing to YouTube. When Spotify changes their royalty structure, you can... accept it or leave the platform entirely.

There's no external oversight. No democratic input. No constitutional protections.

The Algorithm as Judge

Most platform decisions aren't even made by humans anymore.

Algorithms decide what content gets promoted, what gets demonetized, what gets removed entirely. These algorithms are proprietary—trade secrets that can't be examined or challenged.

You're being judged by a system you can't understand, challenge, or appeal to any external authority.

The Technocratic Reality

This isn't capitalism. It's not a free market.

It's technocracy.

Rule by technical experts, implemented through automated systems, enforced by private entities with no democratic accountability.

Spotify executives decide which artists deserve payment. YouTube algorithms determine what constitutes copyright infringement. AI companies define fair use for entire industries.

These are governmental powers exercised by private corporations.

The Bigger Picture

We're witnessing the privatization of law itself.

Instead of public courts interpreting established legal principles, we have private platforms making binding decisions about intellectual property, economic distribution, and speech rights.

Instead of democratic processes determining policy, we have corporate Terms of Service updates that reshape entire industries overnight.

The infrastructure has become the government.

What Comes Next?

Recognition is the first step.

Once you see that platforms aren't just businesses—they're governing institutions—you can start thinking about alternatives.

Blockchain technologies offer some hope. Decentralized platforms utilizing blockchain technology point toward creator-owned infrastructure. But adoption remains limited.

The real question is: do we want to be governed by algorithms designed to maximize corporate profits?

Or do we want systems that serve creators and users rather than shareholders?

The Complacency Problem

But here's the uncomfortable truth:

Complacency is the real issue.

Artists keep choosing the low-hanging fruit. They complain about Spotify's payouts, then upload their entire catalog to Spotify anyway.

They know YouTube's Content ID system is broken, but they still chase subscriber counts and monetization.

They participate in their own exploitation because it feels easier.

Many artists have proven that success is possible without depending on these entities. Chance the Rapper built a Grammy-winning career without a label. Radiohead sold millions of copies of In Rainbows by letting fans pay what they want. Tool waited years to put their music on streaming platforms and still dominated charts when they finally did.

These artists didn't need platform approval—they built their own systems.

The Hard Truth

You cannot stop these companies.

YouTube will keep demonetizing creators. Spotify will keep changing their royalty structures. AI companies will keep training on copyrighted work.

But you can choose not to participate.

And you might be better off for it.

Platform dependency is learned helplessness. Artists convince themselves they "need" these systems because everyone else uses them.

But what if you didn't?

What if you sold directly to fans? What if you built email lists instead of chasing algorithmic reach? What if you treated your art as valuable enough to charge real money for?

The platforms need your content more than you need their platforms.

Without creators, they have nothing to monetize. But creators existed before these platforms and will exist after them.

The time to push back is now—before Terms of Service completely replace the Constitution.

Because once that transition is complete, there's no democratic process left to reverse it.

Stop feeding the machine that's designed to exploit you.

Choose sovereignty over convenience.

The future of creative independence depends on it.