Embassy warned that such a mandate could function as a mechanism for viewpoint-based censorship.
The U.S.
argued that if the British government determines which outlets are preferred, the resulting reduction in reach for disfavored speakers would be equivalent to removing their content entirely.
According to the U.S.
government and the UK’s News Media Association (NMA), these rules could disadvantage independent journalists and commercial newsrooms.
The NMA cautioned that tech companies might find it easiest to comply by simply boosting major public service broadcasters like the BBC, potentially diverting traffic and advertising revenue away from local and national commercial publishers.
There are also concerns that the state, or a body accountable to it, would effectively become the arbiter of what constitutes legitimate journalism, which the NMA described as "press regulation by the back door." The proposal is part of a broader "strategic direction" for UK media being debated in the House of Commons.
Critics, including the National Union of Journalists, suggest that instead of legislative prominence rules, the government should use existing digital competition laws to force platforms like Meta and Google to provide more transparency regarding their algorithms.
These groups argue that the current plan risks putting independent publishers out of business while failing to provide a clear mechanism for how local news would be surfaced without intrusive user tracking.