Advancing a Social Justice Approach to Internet Governance Studies Pedagogy

Policy for the public without the public: Net neutrality in Israel

“…The second is that industry actors were more involved than civil society actors. This finding refers to the established premise in IG literature regarding the uneven power relations between different groups of stakeholders in decision‐making processes (Fuentes‐Bautista et al, 2019). In some countries, mainly the United States, this reality encouraged various social groups to participate in these processes and influence NN policies (Gilroy, 2015; Lentz & Perlman, 2016; Löblich, 2016).…”

“…This multi-stakeholder approach to IG corresponds with the abundant scholarship about public participation in media decision-making processes in general and IG in particular. This writing often emphasizes the importance of civil involvement in such processes in terms of "democratization of the media" (Carroll & Hackett, 2006), "social justice perspectives" (Fuentes-Bautista et al, 2019), "media legitimate rules" (Gangadharan, 2009), and "the public interest" (Löblich, 2016). All these terms address the uneven power relations in IG decision-making structures and processes (Fuentes-Bautista et al, 2019) in favor of the industry and institutionalized groups.…”

“…This writing often emphasizes the importance of civil involvement in such processes in terms of “democratization of the media” (Carroll & Hackett, 2006), “social justice perspectives” (Fuentes‐Bautista et al, 2019), “media legitimate rules” (Gangadharan, 2009), and “the public interest” (Löblich, 2016). All these terms address the uneven power relations in IG decision‐making structures and processes (Fuentes‐Bautista et al, 2019) in favor of the industry and institutionalized groups. As will be shown later, the policy process investigated here and its outcomes reflect these uneven relations between stakeholders and the absence of public/social players in this process.…”