Internet regulation as media policy: Rethinking the question of digital communication platform governance | Intellect Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Digital Media & Policy
  4. Volume 10, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 10, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2516-3523
  • E-ISSN: 2516-3531
file format pdf download PDF

Abstract

This article identifies the current global ‘techlash’ towards the major digital and social media platforms as providing the context for a renewed debate about whether these digital platform companies are effectively media companies (publishers and broadcasters of media content), and implications this has for twenty-first-century media policy. It identifies content moderation as a critical site around which such debates are being played out, and considers the challenges arising as national and regionally based regulatory options are considered for digital platforms that are ‘born global’. It considers the shifting balance between the ‘social contract’ of public interest obligations and democratic rights of free speech and freedom of expression.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Australian Research Council (Award DP190100022)
© 2019 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/jdmp.10.1.33_1
2019-03-01
2024-04-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jdmp/10/1/jdmp.10.1.33.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1386/jdmp.10.1.33_1&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Annany, M., and Gillespie, T.. ( 2017;), ‘ Public platforms: Beyond the cycle of shocks and exceptions. ’, paper presented at Interventions: Communication Research and Practice, 67th Annual Conference of the International Communications Association, San Diego, 25–29 May.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bardo, S.. ( 2017;), ‘ YouTube continues to restrict LGBTQ content. ’, Huffington Post, 16 January, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/youtube-continues-to-restrict-lgbtq-content_us_5a5e6628e4b03ed177016e90. Accessed 21 August 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Burgess, J., and Green, J.. ( 2018), YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture, , 2nd ed.., Cambridge:: Polity Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Crawford, K., and Gillespie, T.. ( 2014;), ‘ What is a flag for? Social media reporting tools and the vocabulary of complaint. ’, New Media & Society, 18:3, pp. 410–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Cuilenburg, J. van, and McQuail, D.. ( 2003;), ‘ Media policy paradigm shifts. ’, European Journal of Communication, 18:2, pp. 181–207.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Darcy, O.. ( 2018;), ‘ Twitter says InfoWars hasn’t “violated our rules”: It looks like that’s not the case. ’, CNN, 9 August, https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/09/media/twitter-infowars-alex-jones/index.html. Accessed 17 August 2018.
  7. DeNardis, L.. ( 2014), The Global War for Internet Governance, New Haven, CT:: Yale University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. The Economist ( 2017;), ‘ Internet firms face a global techlash. ’, The Economist, 10 August, pp. 35–36, https://www.economist.com/news/international/21726072-though-big-tech-firms-are-thriving-they-are-facing-more-scrutiny-ever-internet-firms. Accessed 17 January 2019.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. The Economist ( 2018;), ‘ How to tame the tech titans. ’, The Economist, 18 January, pp. 9–10, https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21735021-dominance-google-facebook-and-amazon-bad-consumers-and-competition-how-tame. Accessed 17 January 2019.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Edwards, L.. ( 2009;), ‘ Pornography, censorship and the Internet. ’, in L. Edwards, and C. Waedle. (eds), Law and the Internet, , 3rd ed.., Oxford:: Hart Publishing;, pp. 623–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. European Commission ( 2016), Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online, Brussels:: European Commission;.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Facebook ( 2018a;), ‘ 3. Your Commitments to Facebook and Our Community and 4. Other Provisions. ’, Terms of Service , https://www.facebook.com/terms.php. Accessed 22 August 2018.
  13. Facebook ( 2018b), Enforcing our Community Standards, Facebook Newsroom , 6 August, https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/08/enforcing-our-community-standards/. Accessed 17 August 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Felle, T.. ( 2017;), ‘ Facebook’s “fake news” plan is doomed to failure: Social media must do more to counter disinformation. ’, City University of London, news , 28 April, https://www.city.ac.uk/news/2017/april/facebooks-fake-news-plan-is-doomed-to-failure-social-media-must-do-more-to-counter-disinformation. Accessed 28 June 2017.
  15. Flew, T.. ( 2006;), ‘ The social contract and beyond in broadcast media policy. ’, Television & New Media, 7:3, pp. 282–305.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Flew, T.. ( 2016;), ‘ Convergent media policy: Reflections on the Australian case. ’, in S. Simpson,, H. van den Bulck, and M. Puppis. (eds), European Media Policy for the Twenty-First Century: Assessing the Past, Setting Agendas for the Future, London:: Routledge;, pp. 219–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Flew, T.. ( 2018;), ‘ Platforms on trial. ’, Intermedia, 46:2, pp. 18–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Gawer, A.. ( 2014;), ‘ Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. ’, Research Policy, 43, pp. 1239–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. German Law Archive ( 2017), Network Enforcement Act (Netzdurchsetzunggesetz, NetzDG), https://germanlawarchive.iuscomp.org/?p=1245. Accessed 19 January 2019.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Gillespie, T.. ( 2018a;), ‘ Regulation of and by platforms. ’, in J. Burgess,, A. Marwick, and T. Poell. (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Social Media, London:: SAGE;, pp. 254–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Gillespie, T.. ( 2018b), Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media, New Haven, CT:: Yale University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Harvey, D.. ( 2018;), ‘ The Twitter rules: A living document. ’, Twitter , 7 August, https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/TheTwitterRulesALivingDocument.html. Accessed 17 August 2018.
  23. Hopkins, N.. ( 2017;), ‘ Revealed: Facebook’s internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence. ’, The Guardian, 22 May, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/21/revealed-facebook-internal-rulebook-sex-terrorism-violence. Accessed 22 August 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Horwitz, R.. ( 1989), The Irony of Regulatory Reform, New York:: Oxford University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. House of Commons ( 2018), Disinformation and ‘Fake News’: Interim Report, London:: House of Commons;.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. House of Commons Home Affairs Committee ( 2017), Hate Crime: Abuse, Hate and Extremism Online, London:: House of Commons;.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Ingram, M.. ( 2018;), ‘ Facebook pulls back the curtain on what kinds of speech it tolerates. ’, Columbia Journalism Review, 25 April, https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/facebook-guidelines.php. Accessed 30 August 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kolbert, E.. ( 2017;), ‘ Who owns the Internet?. ’, The New Yorker, 28 August, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/28/who-owns-the-internet. Accessed 28 August 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Langvardt, K.. ( 2018;), ‘ Regulating online content moderation. ’, The Georgetown Law Journal, 106, pp. 1353–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Lessig, L.. ( 2006), Code 2.0: And Other Laws of Cyberspace, , 2nd ed.., New York:: Basic Books;.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Lunt, P., and Livingstone, S.. ( 2012), Media Regulation: Governance and the Interests of Citizens and Consumers, London:: Sage;.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. MacKinnon, R.,, Hickok, E.,, Bar, A., and Lim, H.. ( 2014), Fostering Freedom Online: The Role of Internet Intermediaries, Paris:: UNESCO;, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002311/231162e.pdf. Accessed 29 September 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Mansell, R., and Raboy, M.. ( 2011;), ‘ Foundations of the theory and practice of global media and communication policy. ’, in R. Mansell, and M. Raboy. (eds), Handbook of Global Media and Communication Policy, Malden, MA:: Wiley-Blackwell;, pp. 1–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Mathiason, J.. ( 2009), Internet Governance: The New Frontier of Global Institutions, London:: Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. McCabe, D.. ( 2018;), ‘ Scoop: 20 ways Democrats could crack down on Big Tech. ’, Axios , 30 July, https://www.axios.com/mark-warner-google-facebook-regulation-policy-paper-023d4a52-2b25-4e44-a87c-945e73c637fa.html. Accessed 10 October 2018.
  36. Mosco, V.. ( 2017), Becoming Digital: Toward a Post-Internet Society, Bingley:: Emerald Publishing;.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Mueller, M.. ( 2015;), ‘ Hyper-transparency and social control: Social media as magnets for regulation. ’, Telecommunications Policy, 39:9, 804–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Murphy, P. P.. ( 2018;), ‘ InfoWars’ main YouTube channel is two strikes away from being banned. ’, CNN , 24 February, https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/23/us/infowars-youtube-videos-trnd/index.html. Accessed 17 August 2018.
  39. Napoli, P.. ( 2014;), ‘ Automated media: An institutional theory perspective on algorithmic media production and consumption. ’, Communication Theory, 24:3, pp. 340–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Napoli, P., and Caplan, R.. ( 2017;), ‘ Why media companies insist they’re not media companies, why they’re wrong, and why it matters. ’, First Monday, 22:5, http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7051. Accessed 10 August 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Noam, E.. ( 2009), Media Ownership and Concentration in America, New York:: Oxford University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Picard, R., and Pickard, V.. ( 2017), Essential Principles for Contemporary Media and Communications Policymaking, Oxford:: University of Oxford;.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Schemeil, Y.. ( 2012;), ‘ Global governance: Evolution and innovation in international relations. ’, in E. Brousseau,, M. Merzouki, and C. Meadel. (eds), Governance, Regulations and Powers on the Internet, Cambridge:: Cambridge University Press;, pp. 186–208.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Schiller, D.. ( 2000), Digital Capitalism: Networking the Global Market System, Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Shen, H.. ( 2016;), ‘ China and global internet governance: Toward an alternative analytical framework. ’, Chinese Journal of Communication, 9:3, pp. 304–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Solum, L.. ( 2009;), ‘ Models of internet governance. ’, in L. Bygrave, and J. Bing. (eds), Internet Governance: Infrastructure and Institutions, Oxford:: Oxford University Press;, pp. 48–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Srnicek, N.. ( 2017), Platform Capitalism, Cambridge:: Polity;.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Staltz, A.. ( 2017;), ‘ The web began dying in 2014: Here’s how. ’, Open Democracy , 27 November, https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaliberties/andr-staltz/web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how. Accessed 10 August 2018.
  49. Streeter, T.. ( 1996), Selling the Air, Chicago:: University of Chicago Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Suzor, N. P.. ( 2018;), ‘ Digital constitutionalism: Using the rule of law to evaluate the legitimacy of governance by platforms. ’, Social Media + Society, 4:3, pp. 1–11.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Suzor, N. P.. ( 2019), Lawless: The Secret Rules That Govern Our Digital Lives, Cambridge:: Cambridge University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Suzor, N. P.,, Seignior, B., and Singleton, J.. ( 2017;), ‘ Non-consensual porn and the responsibilities of online intermediaries. ’, Melbourne University Law Review, 40:3, pp. 1057–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Taylor, D.. ( 2018;), ‘ Big tech’s double trouble: Political heat from Trump and the left may signal reckoning ahead. ’, The Guardian, 2 September, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/02/big-techs-double-trouble-bipartisan-criticism-may-signal-a-reckoning-ahead. Accessed 10 October 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Turner, Z.. ( 2018;), ‘ Facebook, Google have a tough new job in Germany: Content cop. ’, Wall Street Journal, 10 January, https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-google-have-a-tough-new-job-in-germany-content-cop-1515605207. Accessed 19 January 2019.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Winseck, D.. ( 2011;), ‘ The political economies of media and the transformation of the global media industries. ’, in D. Winseck, and D. Jin. (eds), The Political Economies of Media, London:: Bloomsbury Academic;, pp. 3–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Wu, T.. ( 2013), The Master Switch, New York:: Vintage Books;.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Zittrain, J.. ( 2008), The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, New Haven, CT:: Yale University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Flew, T.,, Martin, F., and Suzor, N.. ( 2019;), ‘ Internet regulation as media policy: Rethinking the question of digital communication platform governance. ’, Journal of Digital Media & Policy, 10:1, pp. 33–50, doi: 10.1386/jdmp.10.1.33_1
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/jdmp.10.1.33_1
Loading
  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): classification; content moderation; digital platforms; intermediaries; media policy; media regulation; platform capitalism; platform governance

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error