I'd feel much more confident of that if they were asking for regulation in things that harmed them and benefited society, but they're not asking for data portability, restrictions on their ability to harvest so much data, or for their companies to be broken up, are they? This is merely creating a smokescreen to make them appear ethical while they continue gaining ever greater market share and huge profits.
100% agree on the industry concerns, think we will have to agree to disagree on the motivations.
They won't do any of the things you ask voluntarily. People in entertainment industries hand over a portion of their take-home to have other people negotiate them higher salaries, not lesser ones. The only way those things happen is if we force the issue, which requires voting for politicians that do it. Not that those candidates are in large supply, seeing how our present monopolists spend the most in campaign contributions to buy favorable policy outcomes.
It's the 1890s all over again, except that circulation yielded more revenue back then than ads did. If you want to put your faith in a media outlet, pick one like
The New York Times with a subscription-based revenue model. Non-profits like
The Guardian and
The Philadelphia Inquirer are arguably even better, though that approach also aggravates the problem of slant. (Like
The Washington Post would ever run deep criticism of Amazon. As if.)