False information has become a profound issue of the Internet governance partly because of its serious impact on the political elections and public daily information flows. Different countries and social media platforms have adopted divergent approaches in handling false information. This study conducts a comparative study of the governance models of social media platforms in the United States and China over false Information from the perspectives of the balance of governance mechanism, that is, the balance between self‐regulation, external regulation and coregulation. It explores the laws, regulations and rules of falseinformation in two countries, exams social media platform's regulatory mechanism, focusing on comparison of Weibo and Facebook. The research shows that to increase transparency and accountability, both Weibo and Facebook have devoted certain governance power and responsibilities to internal or external intermediaries. This may induce two negative implications: accountability of the external actors and reduction of platform's supervisory obligations. The paper concludes by arguing that having a more effective, accountable and inclusive governance of false information in social media platforms, we not only need to find a balance between the functions and power of different stakeholders in governance but also need to seek a delicate balance between the three regulatory models of social media falseinformation governance.
In modern international competition and cooperation, digital trade rules centered on the cross-border flow of data have become a competitive advantage for countries. Under the guidance of commercial freedom, the United States chooses to actively promote the free flow of data across borders. The European Union has placed the protection of personal data rights before the cross-border flow of data through the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and developing countries generally reserve space for industry policy interpretation. As one of the world’s largest economies, facing the needs of domestic industrial development and the pressure of international systems, China’s cross-border data flows’ policy is to ensure data flows under the premise of security, protection of personal information, seek international coordination of rules, and the freedom of transmission. The key question, therefore, is how to facilitate interoperability or find a middle ground among the divergent approaches in order to avoid the fragmentation of the digital trade system. The article suggests that a thin and narrowly scoped WTO agreement on e-commerce rules on cross-border data flows with sufficient policy space to accommodate different needs, policy preferences and proprieties, and local contexts via legitimate exception provisions would be a welcome movement.
This article argues that China's public service broadcasting (PSB) policy has been motivated more by the pragmatic ends of securing social stability and cohesion than by moral or humane concerns for the development of citizens. Actual PSB policy focused predominantly on a narrowly defined 'basic cultural right' of access to broadcast media and on social equalization between urban and rural access to broadcast networks. Other values of PSB, including high-quality programming, independence and impartiality, are still marginalized. The continuation of consensus on the authoritarian political model and the prioritization of social order and collective rights over individual political and civil rights has restricted the scope of the policy. The lack of consensus on the substance of the public interest undermines any meaningful political construction of PSB. The longterm implications of PSB policy depend on the legitimation of the discourse of individual rights and equality, and on recognition of the broadcast media's role in independently serving the public and common good and of the state's obligation to respect individuals as citizens having equal and unalienable rights.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.