Digital Platform Regulation
Global Perspectives on Internet Governance
- Open Access
- 2022
- Open Access
- Book
- Editors
- Terry Flew
- Fiona R. Martin
- Book Series
- Palgrave Global Media Policy and Business
- Publisher
- Springer International Publishing
About this book
This Open Access volume provides an in-depth exploration of global policy and governance issues related to digital platform regulation. With an international ensemble of contributors, the volume has at its heard the question: what would actually be involved in digital platform regulation?’. Once a specialised and niche field within internet and digital media studies, internet governance has in recent years moved to the forefront of policy debate. In the wake of scandals such as Cambridge Analytica and the global ‘techlash’ against digital monopolies, platform studies are undergoing a critical turn, but there is a greater need to connect such analysis to questions of public policy. This volume does just that, through a rich array of chapters concretely exploring the operation and influence of digital platforms and their related policy concerns. A wide variety of digital communication platforms are explored, including social media, content portals, search engines and app stores.
An important and timely work, ‘Digital Platform Regulation’ provides valuable insights into new global platform-orientated policy reforms, supplying an important resource to researchers everywhere seeking to engage with policymakers in the debate about the power of digital platforms and how to address it.
Advertisement
Table of Contents
-
Chapter 1. Introduction
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThe chapter begins by tracing the shift of internet governance and digital platform regulation from a niche field to a central debate in scholarly, policy, and community circles. It discusses pivotal events such as the Snowden revelations and the adoption of the GDPR, which have driven this transformation. The text explores the tangible harms caused by social media, leading to punitive laws and major public inquiries. It also delves into the 'Facebook papers' revelations and the call for greater regulatory oversight. The chapter highlights the need for a 'third way' in internet governance, between libertarianism and authoritarianism, and the increasing activism of governments towards tech giants. It concludes by setting the stage for the collection of essays, which aim to explore the shifting balance between media policy and platform self-governance.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractOver the past decade the study of internet governance and platform regulation has evolved into a new, socially engaged regulatory field. This chapter introduces regulatory debates surrounding the rise of digital communications platforms and their similarities to media companies. It considers the growth of regulatory activism in response to platformisation and the ‘techlash’, disputes about platform companies’ intermediary liability, and their resistance to legal controls. The chapter also explores the distinction between regulation and governance strategies, emphasising the challenges of self-regulation. It introduces core concerns of the contributors including: how we might address platforms’ dire impact on public interest journalism; how we can develop coherent, transparent, and convergent regulatory frameworks for tackling platform power; how we might analyse and monitor platforms’ new datafied, participatory advertising operations; how we can foster local content and conceive the politics of discoverability in an age of global streaming services; why platforms might have more in common with telecommunications than media companies, and, fundamentally, why governments’ early support for platform self-regulation and governance has shifted in response to political and economic transformations. -
Chapter 2. Can Journalism Survive in the Age of Platform Monopolies? Confronting Facebook’s Negative Externalities
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThe chapter delves into the existential threats faced by print news media due to the collapse of their advertising revenue-based business model, largely blamed on platforms like Facebook and Google. It discusses the sustainability of journalism, particularly local news, and the need for policy measures to rebalance market power. The author critiques Facebook’s role in spreading misinformation, abusing market power, and enabling interference in democratic processes. The text moves beyond critiquing monopoly power to consider systemic solutions, including platform regulation and public alternatives to the current profit-driven system. It concludes by focusing on more radical proposals like public ownership, highlighting the need for deep structural reform to assure democratic outcomes.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractAs commercial journalism collapses around the world, the platforms’ culpability for defunding news media has attracted increasing scrutiny. Journalism’s sustainability is increasingly threatened by the Facebook and Google duopoly, which devours the lion’s share of digital advertising revenue, at a time when democratic societies desperately need reliable news and information. Thus far, policy measures to rebalance this power relationship have been limited. Moreover, policy debates focused on these issues too often elide the core root of the problem in both diminishing journalism and driving the platforms toward antisocial behavior: namely, unbridled capitalism. With this problem in mind, this essay explores more radical options toward buffering our core news and information systems from corrosive commercial logics. -
Chapter 3. Platforms and the Press: Regulatory Interventions to Address an Imbalance of Power
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThe chapter delves into the evolving relationship between digital platforms and news media, focusing on regulatory interventions to address the power imbalance. It examines the legislative efforts in France, Germany, and Australia to mandate compensation for news publishers by digital platforms. The case studies highlight the complex dynamics and challenges faced by policymakers, publishers, and platforms in these countries. The chapter also discusses the broader implications of these regulatory efforts on the future of news ecosystems and the role of digital platforms in society.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractThe relatively short relationship between digital platforms and the news media has been characterized by constant evolution and conflict. As the economics of journalism have faltered and digital platforms have risen to become prominent gateways to the news, that relationship has increasingly caught the attention of policymakers. This chapter focuses on recent developments in three countries (Germany, France, and Australia) that have been particularly active in intervening in the relationship between digital platforms and the press. It highlights national government efforts to require platforms such as Google and Facebook to compensate news organizations for distributing their content. This chapter provides an overview of these efforts and their underlying political dynamics. It concludes with an assessment of the broader implications of the actions that these countries have taken and a consideration of future and alternative policy options. -
Chapter 4. EU Digital Services Act: The White Hope of Intermediary Regulation
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThe EU Digital Services Act (DSA) is a proposed regulation aimed at addressing the challenges posed by intermediaries, particularly social media platforms, in managing online harms and illegal content. The DSA seeks to update the existing E-Commerce Directive by introducing more nuanced definitions of intermediary services and platforms, and by maintaining the ban on general content monitoring while imposing specific obligations for illegal content removal. It also establishes new oversight institutions, such as Digital Services Coordinators and the Board for Digital Services, to enforce compliance and ensure transparency. Additionally, the DSA requires intermediaries to publish annual transparency reports and conduct risk assessments, particularly for Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs). The proposal is part of a broader EU strategy to protect democratic values and fundamental rights in the digital sphere, addressing concerns about disinformation, hate speech, and the power dynamics between platforms and users. The DSA is designed to strike a balance between liability and fundamental rights, aiming to create a more accountable and transparent digital environment. As the legislative process continues, the final version of the DSA will shape the future of intermediary regulation in the EU and potentially beyond.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractMost experts and journalists agree on the huge importance of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (hereinafter DSA). But can the first proposal published by the EU Commission in December 2020 live up to the expectations expressed ahead? The business model of social media platforms has been criticized for years, but since the Cambridge Analytica scandal, this criticism has expanded beyond a relatively small circle of experts. Lawmakers around the world have tried to push platforms to enforce applicable law and take responsibility. This contribution looks at the key obligations under the DSA and how they are monitored for compliance. It also presents the provisions for greater transparency and accountability. Finally, it looks at the possible consequences if the DSA were to come into force in its current form. -
Chapter 5. Holding the Line: Responsibility, Digital Citizenship and the Platforms
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThe chapter delves into the complex interplay between digital platforms, corporate social responsibility, and democratic values, focusing on the controversial ban of Donald Trump from social media. It argues for a reevaluation of the duties and responsibilities of big tech companies in upholding democratic principles and protecting individual rights. The text also explores the regulatory challenges and the need for a more robust engagement with human rights and digital citizenship. Additionally, it discusses the role of emerging understandings of CSR in supporting responsible practices by tech platforms, highlighting the need for a balanced approach that respects both democratic ideals and the rights of users.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractThis chapter analyses examples of conflicts in standards that may illustrate the need for digital platforms to adopt a more proactive approach to corporate social responsibility (CSR). It asks what changes platform media would need to make to ‘take responsibility’ in the digital landscape., and undertaken an exploration of existing regulatory approaches and analyses of practice, to propose an enhanced vision of digital corporations’ application of CSR to benefit individuals and societies. The suggestion is that digital platforms be constructed as publishers of information, requiring them to be accountable for material carried on their sites. -
Chapter 6. Regulating Platforms’ Algorithmic Brand Culture: The Instructive Case of Alcohol Marketers on Social Media
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThis chapter delves into the transformative impact of digital platforms on advertising, highlighting the shift from traditional mass media models to data-driven, participatory, and opaque advertising on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. It argues that the unique characteristics of platform advertising necessitate new regulatory approaches, focusing on the governance of alcohol marketing as a case study. The chapter traces the evolution of platform advertising from organic engagement to paid, data-driven models, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in the face of growing concerns about harmful marketing practices. By examining the regulatory challenges posed by the advertising models of digital platforms, the chapter offers valuable insights into the broader implications for public health, consumer protection, and the governance of digital media.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractThis chapter offers an account of how alcohol marketers have used social media platforms over the past fifteen years, and argues that understanding the engineering, operation and consequences of platforms’ data-driven, participatory and opaque advertising model is fundamental to addressing larger questions of platform regulation in the public interest. It suggests that through the case of alcohol marketing we can understand and assess many of the novel regulatory challenges posed by the advertising model of digital platform companies. Thus, in this chapter we appraise some of the existing alcohol industry and platform approaches to self-regulation and suggest some principles for regulating marketing that is data-driven, participatory and opaque, and connect these to larger debates about the future regulation of platforms. The critical assessment of the novel ways in which platform marketing integrates participatory forms of audience engagement with the prospecting, segmentation and targeting of consumers is crucial for developing an accountable regulatory regime that allows for effective governance of the commercial activities of marketers and brands on platforms. -
Chapter 7. Digital Platforms as Policy Actors
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThe chapter 'Digital Platforms as Policy Actors' examines the evolving role of digital giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon in shaping policy debates and influencing regulatory frameworks. It discusses the challenges posed by platform markets, the growing calls for public-private governance regimes, and the strategic efforts of tech companies to shape policy outcomes. The author outlines the key features of platforms' policy communications, including their preferences for frictionless regulation and multi-stakeholder partnerships. The chapter concludes by reflecting on the implications of these policy communications for platform oversight and the trade-offs they introduce for policymakers.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractThis chapter traces how dominant U.S. platform companies attempt to influence policy debates, focusing on (a) the policy issues they engage, (b) the policy preferences they communicate, and (c) what these communications reveal about their regulatory and platform governance philosophies. Amid calls for private–public platform oversight frameworks, these policy communications provide insight into what such co-governance regimes might look like in practice. Specifically, platforms seek partnerships extending beyond nation-state boundaries, reflecting the transnational scope of their business operations. Domestically, they call for a form of “frictionless regulation”: light and narrow regulatory oversight confined to baseline standard-setting, receptive to the private sector's ongoing feedback, and prioritizing fast responsiveness to market needs over the slow and deliberative responsiveness to the public, typical of democratic governance. -
Chapter 8. Global Platforms and Local Networks: An Institutional Account of the Australian News Media Bargaining Code
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThe chapter delves into the institutional dynamics surrounding the Australian News Media Bargaining Code, a regulatory response to the power of digital platforms like Google and Facebook. It examines how local actors, including publishers, the ACCC, and the government, influenced the development and implementation of the code. The case study highlights the complex interplay between these institutions and the historical context that shaped their interactions. The analysis also considers the implications of the code for the future of journalism and the challenges faced by smaller digital publishers in the regulatory landscape.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractIn recent years, researchers have scrutinised the power of digital platforms in the news industry. However, while digital platforms are powerful actors, there is a tendency to emphasise this power at the expense of other institutions. In this chapter we examine the critical role that government, regulatory authorities and the news media played in developing the Australian News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code. We explore how long-standing relationships between sections of the media and the government, and the regulatory activism of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, influenced the final form of the Code. In doing so, we offer a nuanced account of platform power that contextualises their actions in relation to the residual institutional power of local actors. -
Chapter 9. Regulating Chinese and North American Digital Media in Australia: Facebook and WeChat as Case Studies
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThe chapter examines the regulation of digital media platforms Facebook and WeChat in Australia, focusing on the unique challenges posed by their differing business models and regulatory frameworks. It explores how these platforms grapple with issues such as disinformation, transparency, and media diversity in a multicultural society with significant Chinese immigration. By comparing the approaches of these two digital giants, the chapter provides valuable insights into the complexities of platform regulation in a globalized digital economy.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractAs the Australian government has legislated for a ‘News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code’ to compel Google and Facebook to pay for news content, platform regulation in Australia has prompted a heated discussion worldwide. Questionable business practices have incited issues such as anti-competition behaviour, online harms, disinformation, algorithmic advertising, trade of data, privacy breaches and so on. Consequently, these technology tycoons are reinscribing industries and societies alike, posing a threat to digital democracy. This chapter examines how Facebook and WeChat are (or should be) regulated in Australia, the current regulatory frameworks, and the overall effectiveness of self-regulation. Through the lenses of comparative research, this study is focused on infrastructuralisation, techno-nationalism (censorship), and civil society (media diversity), to identify distinct features and common themes in platform regulation and explore possible solutions to regulating global platforms in Australia. -
Chapter 10. State Actor Policy and Regulation Across the Platform-SVOD Divide
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThis chapter delves into the rapidly evolving global policy landscape surrounding digital platforms and SVOD services, focusing on the regulatory challenges they pose to traditional media industries. It argues for the necessity of a unified approach to policy and regulation across the platform-SVOD divide, highlighting the interconnected nature of issues such as privacy, moderation, and cultural impact. The chapter offers in-depth case studies of regulatory initiatives in the European Union, Canada, and Australia, showcasing the diverse strategies employed to address the multifaceted challenges posed by digital giants like Google, Facebook, and Netflix. By examining the underlying rationales and commonalities across these jurisdictions, the chapter underscores the urgency of developing comprehensive, coordinated policy responses to the transformative effects of digital media on society and culture.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractThere are rapidly growing concerns worldwide about the impact of content aggregation and distribution through digital platforms on traditional media industries and society in general. These have given rise to policy and regulation across the social pillar, including issues of privacy, moderation, and cyberbullying; the public interest/infosphere pillar, with issues such as fake news, the democratic deficit, and the crisis in journalism; and the competition pillar, involving issues based on platform dominance in advertising markets. The cultural pillar, involving the impact of SVODs on the ability of content regulation to support local production capacity, is often bracketed out of these debates. We argue this divide is increasingly untenable due to the convergent complexities of contemporary media and communications policy and regulation. We pursue this argument by offering three issues that bring policy and regulation together across the platform-SVOD divide: digital and global players have been beyond the reach of established broadcasting regulation; the nature of the Silicon Valley playbook for disrupting media markets; and platforms and SVODs now need not only to be aggregators but also contributors to local cultures. We draw on three examples: the European Union, Canada and Australia. -
Chapter 11. Regulating Discoverability in Subscription Video-on-Demand Services
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThe chapter delves into the complexities of regulating discoverability in subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) services, highlighting the challenges faced by policymakers in adapting traditional media policies to the digital age. It explores how the 'Netflix effect' has disrupted established norms and the need to balance commercial interests with public-interest content. The text discusses various regulatory approaches in Europe, Canada, and the UK, emphasizing the importance of discoverability in maintaining cultural diversity and the prominence of public-service broadcasters. It also touches on the ethical and sociological dimensions of regulating discoverability, underscoring the delicate balance between intervention and consumer choice.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractIn recent years, the growing popularity of services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Disney+ has raised complex challenges for media policy. Established policy approaches in a range of areas including audio-visual licensing, classification, censorship, and local production support are now being disrupted as governments grapple with the “Netflix effect” and its implications for national markets and institutions. Meanwhile, consumption practices are also changing as the algorithmically curated interfaces of SVOD services invite audiences to discover content in new ways. In particular, the use of personalised recommendation and other algorithmic filtering techniques has prompted discussion of how SVODs manage the visibility of different kinds of content—and whether these discovery environments require a policy response. This chapter explores how discoverability has emerged as a topic of debate, specifically in relation to SVOD services, and how this is connected to other precedents in audio-visual law and policy such as prominence regulation. We reflect on the many tensions inherent in this area of policy—which exists at the interface of media and platform regulation—and consider some of the normative questions raised when governments intervene in audiences’ content choices. -
Chapter 12. The Broken Internet and Platform Regulation: Promises and Perils
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThe chapter delves into the intense criticism faced by Internet giants like Google and Facebook, which are accused of causing a crisis in journalism and undermining democracy. It discusses the Australian government's response with the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code. The author challenges the orthodoxy that these companies are solely responsible for the media's woes, arguing that many media sectors are thriving. The chapter also examines the historical context of telecoms and media industries, drawing parallels with past regulatory battles. It proposes four principles for a new generation of Internet regulations: structural separation, line of business restrictions, public obligations, and public alternatives. These principles aim to address market dominance, transparency, and the public interest. The chapter concludes by emphasizing the need for ambitious and circumspect Internet regulation for the public interest and democracy.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractA relatively small number of global Internet giants—Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, and Netflix—have come under intense and ongoing fire for precipitating a twin crisis of journalism and the media, destroying democracy, and centralizing control over the Internet. In response, a new wave of Internet regulation is now in the making in one country after another. This chapter agrees that a forceful response to the platforms is overdue but raises concerns that the case against GAFAM + has become orthodoxy, anchored in cherry-picked evidence and a tendency to see these firms as the cause of all perceived woes. I also argue that while attempts to regulate digital platforms by the standards of broadcasting regulation may be politically expedient, this approach rests on superficial analogies. It also ignores the fact that the media industries have developed in close proximity to the vastly larger telecoms, consumer electronics and banking firms since the mid-nineteenth century. The last sections of this chapter offer four principles of structural and behavioural regulation drawn from this history as guides for a new generation of internet regulation today: structural separation (break-ups), line of business restrictions (firewalls), public obligations and public alternatives. -
Chapter 13. Self-regulation and Discretion
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThe chapter delves into the complexities of self-regulation and discretion in digital platforms, highlighting the need for platforms to manage content responsibly. It discusses the influence of stakeholders such as regulators, NGOs, and businesses on platform governance, and the challenges faced in enforcing rules, particularly for 'lawful but harmful' content. The study, based on interviews with key stakeholders, argues that self-regulation is both necessary and good, as platforms must interpret and enforce rules within zones of discretion. The chapter concludes by emphasizing the importance of understanding how external pressure can influence platforms and the ongoing challenge of 'digital constitutionalism' in a global, pluralistic networked environment.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractWho should decide what content is permissible online? Platforms will always exercise some degree of discretion over content moderation, and ensuring that platforms exercise their discretionary powers responsibly is a large part of making governance legitimate. In this chapter, we argue that improving the self-regulation of internal governance practices of platforms is a critical component of any regulatory project. Our argument is that platforms must always have a role in regulating lawful speech and that regulating ordinary, lawful speech is critical to influencing cultures and addressing harm. We draw on the results of a qualitative study involving a broad group of participants who actively work to influence how platforms govern their users. We offer a simple proof in the moral responsibilities that platforms bear to address the pressing need for cultural change in violence against women—responsibilities that cannot fully be carried out or overseen by states or other external actors. -
Chapter 14. Beyond the Paradox of Trust and Digital Platforms: Populism and the Reshaping of Internet Regulations
- Open Access
Download PDF-versionThe chapter 'Beyond the Paradox of Trust and Digital Platforms: Populism and the Reshaping of Internet Regulations' delves into the complex relationship between digital platforms and the crisis of trust, particularly focusing on the rise of populism and its impact on internet regulations. It begins by examining the common approach to addressing misinformation and 'fake news' through supply-side solutions, such as fact-checking and media literacy. The text then explores the broader crisis of trust in media and expertise, highlighting the role of populism in reshaping public discourse and policy. It argues that the traditional approaches to combating misinformation may inadvertently fuel greater distrust and the spread of conspiracy theories. The chapter also discusses the political and economic factors driving populism, including the rise of 'Brahmin elites' and the growing significance of cultural factors in political identity. It concludes by considering the future of tech policy and the challenges posed by populism, emphasizing the need for greater accountability and transparency in digital platform governance.AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
AbstractOne of the paradoxes of the misinformation and ‘fake news’ debates are that they require a greater degree of trust in media, digital platforms and governments in order to combat conspiracy theories, when in fact distrust of media, digital platforms and governments is part of a wider crisis of trust in institutions and expertise. This suggests that we need a more sophisticated analysis of the politics of expertise and how they intersect with both policies towards digital platforms and shifts in the political sphere. Drawing upon the work of Thomas Piketty on shifts in electoral politics, and Pippa Norris on the rise of populism, it is argued that debates about tech policy are largely played out between educated elites from ‘liberal’ and ‘cosmopolitan’ perspectives, which leaves them open to populist critique. One of the reasons why there are greater calls to regulate digital platforms is the rise of political populism, which can leave digital activists in a political bind: they favour measures to rein in the power of ‘Big Tech’ in principle, but are very wary of any measures perceived to increase the power of nation states with regards to the Internet.
- Title
- Digital Platform Regulation
- Editors
-
Terry Flew
Fiona R. Martin
- Copyright Year
- 2022
- Publisher
- Springer International Publishing
- Electronic ISBN
- 978-3-030-95220-4
- Print ISBN
- 978-3-030-95219-8
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95220-4
Accessibility information for this book is coming soon. We're working to make it available as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.