Centre for Digital Governance
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (10)
- Part of a Book (5)
- Working Paper (3)
- Contribution to a Periodical (2)
- Book (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (21)
Keywords
- China (4)
- Authoritarianism (1)
- Big Data (1)
- Commercialization (1)
- Democracy (1)
- Digital Governance (1)
- Media (1)
- Social Media (1)
- censorship (1)
- content management (1)
Concerns over online hatespeech have prompted governments to strengthen social media governance. However, claims by policy-makers and political activists regarding the effectiveness and likely consequences of legal regulations remain largely untested. We rely on qualitative interviews and two expert surveys to examine the behavior of public relations professionals in response to online hatespeech when having the option of using the new user-complaint mechanism under the German Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG). Our findings reveal that strategies depend on whether professionals work at public sector institutions, business, or civil society organizations and political parties. Public sector institutions are likely to report to the platform, but not under NetzDG. Civil society organizations are likely to choose content moderation, counterspeech, and other forms of intervention. Businesses deploy a wide range of strategies. In practice, Germany's procedural approach relying on user-complaint mechanisms to deal with online hatespeech is not used by experts as a means to combat online harassment.
The EU Digital Service Acts signals a move away from self-regulation towards co-regulation of social media platforms within the European Union. To address online harms and rising platform power the DSA clarifies responsibilities of platforms and outlines a new technology regulatory framework to increase oversight. One key oversight instrument constitutes Article 40 of the DSA, which lays out data access for vetted researchers, who add value to regulators and the broader public as creators of knowledge, educators, advisors, innovators, and watchdogs. Currently, the EU Commission and national governments make important decisions regarding Digital Service Coordinators (DSCs) that play a key role in implementation. Based on expertise on European public administration and political science we lay out key challenges and success factors of DSCs that will play a role in promoting successful cooperation between DSCs and researchers. We provide three recommendations: First, we recommend to strengthen transfer of scientific knowledge into policy-making by processing publicly accessible publications within public administrative bodies. To this end, capacities of DSCs need to be increased. In addition, we also point towards the database of vetted researchers collected by the Board of DSCs as important resource in order to strengthen knowledge transfer. Second, the DSC network requires agile institutions with fast response time in order to enable researchers to play a constructive role in implementation. This also includes institutional procedures between DSCs and the Intermediary Body and Data Protection Agencies. To avoid delay in implementation agile institution-building needs to start now. Finally, institutional safeguards will help to avoid strategic choice of companies of the DSC of establishment. At the same time, the Irish DSC's capacity should be strengthened compared to other national DSCs since most large intermediary services providers have their European headquarters in Ireland.
Tech companies and the public interest: the role of the state in governing social media platforms
(2023)
In the early days of the internet, it was hoped that digital technology would bring about democracy and positive outcomes for society. Recently, the debate has shifted towards tech lash with many critics pointing towards technology companies undermining democracy, stability, and sustainability. As a result, a new consensus seems to be emerging among policymakers, companies, and civil societal actors that self-regulation has to move towards co-regulation. This Special Issue of Information, Communication and Society draws together cutting-edge contributions on three core themes in scholarly and policy discourse on platform regulation: First, the papers in this special issue enhance empirical understandings of the role of the state in governing social media platforms developing in the United States, Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Second, they provide a holistic framework to understand policy problems that need to be addressed, which helps to develop and evaluate new policy initiatives. Finally, papers point towards three approaches in governing social media platforms and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of content moderation, process-based co-regulation, as well as competition regulation and alternative business models.
This paper proposes a novel instrument – the political position generator - for measuring individuals’ political ties, or personal, affective connections to state officials and other political actors. It adopts and adapts the more general position generator framework in social capital research to capture three key dimensions of political ties – upper reachability, network diversity, and tie strength. The measure is validated with data from a representative survey of the Chinese population and three scales representing the three political ties dimensions are created. In correlational and multivariate regression analyses, we find initial evidence of the instrument’s criterion-related (discriminant and concurrent) validity.
Social media companies rely on user agreements as one means to manage content produced by users. While much has been written on user agreements and community standards of U.S.-based social media, surprisingly little is known about Chinese user agreements and their implications. We compare terms of services as well as privacy policies of WeChat and Weibo between 2014 and 2019 using their U.S. counterparts WhatsApp and Twitter as a benchmark. We find that Chinese user agreements reveal a territorial-based understanding of content management differentiating between PRC and non-PRC users based on language, IP address and country of citizenship. Second, Chinese social media companies are surprisingly transparent about what content can be published, which has implications for self-censorship among users. Third, changes in PRC user agreements reflect Xi Jinping’s tightening control of the Internet. Finally, U.S.-based platforms have moved towards content management that differs by region, thus becoming more similar to the Chinese approach over time.
The spread of false information and hate speech has increased with the rise of social media. This paper critically examines this phenomenon and the reactions of governments and major corporations in Europe. Policymakers have turned towards national regulation as a means to manage false information and hate speech. This article looks into the legislative frameworks on the issue in Germany, France, the UK, the Czech Republic, and Italy and compares them. In response to such regulatory pressure, tech companies have been changing aspects of their platforms to deal with this trend, for example through content moderation. We propose tentative alternatives to this current approach towards reinforcing boundaries for freedom of expression.
Designing authoritarian deliberation: how social media platforms influence political talk in China
(2019)
Discussion is often celebrated as a critical element of public opinion and political participation. Recently, scholars have suggested that the design and features of specific online platforms shape what is politically expressed online and how. Building on these findings and drawing on 112 semi-structured qualitative interviews with information technology experts and internet users, we explain how major Chinese social media platforms differ in structure and motivation. Drawing upon a nationwide representative survey and an online experiment, we find that platforms aiming to make users a source of information through public, information-centred communication, such as the Twitter-like Weibo, are more conducive to political expression; while platforms built to optimize building social connections through private, user-centred communication, such as WhatsApp and Facebook-like WeChat, tend to inhibit political expression. These technological design effects are stronger when users believe the authoritarian state tolerates discussion, but less important when political talk is sensitive. The findings contribute to the debate on the political consequences of the internet by specifying technological and political conditions.