Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility

Abstract

Online platforms, from Facebook to Twitter, and from Coursera to Uber, have become deeply involved in a wide range of public activities, including journalism, civic engagement, education, and transport. As such, they have started to play a vital role in the realization of important public values and policy objectives associated with these activities. Based on insights from theories about risk sharing and the problem of many hands, this article develops a conceptual framework for the governance of the public role of platforms, and elaborates on the concept of cooperative responsibility for the realization of critical public policy objectives in Europe. It argues that the realization of public values in platform-based public activities cannot be adequately achieved by allocating responsibility to one central actor (as is currently common practice), but should be the result of dynamic interaction between platforms, users, and public institutions.

How Online Content Providers Moderate User‐Generated Content to Prevent Harmful Online Communication: An Analysis of Policies and Their Implementation

“…That is, to foster civility and not to exert even more control over users, who need to be granted their right to free speech within the limits of not endangering others’ rights to safety and dignity. All in all, as part of shared responsibility for HOC social issues (Helberger et al, 2018), organizations should take a more proactive stance in preventing HOC and protecting their users rather than resorting to government regulations or user civility. Importantly, this includes more effective HOC‐related policy communication with users, and proactive initiatives to educate users on does and don'ts with regard to HOC.…”

“…To be able to fulfill their responsibility, however, users need to have sufficient capacity, knowledge, and freedom to exercise necessary actions. This is where OCPs come back into play, as they have to “create the conditions that allow individual users to comply with their responsibilities” (Helberger et al, 2018, p. 3, emphasis in original). It is the way the platform architectures are designed that shapes how users can review, flag, or counter HOC and thereby fulfill their responsibilities.…”

“…At the center of the debate is often governments’ enforcement of national legislation. However, governments and legal institutions are in fact only one set of actors in a larger mosaic of institutions and private entities governing the Internet (DeNardis, 2012) and sharing responsibility for HOC (Helberger, Pierson, & Poell, 2018). A great deal of power lies with private entities, above all with the organizations who make money or support their business from people using their online platforms for communication.…”

Need for a new workplace safety and health (WSH) strategy for the fourth Industrial Revolution

“…Effective governance of platform work could be attained through cooperative responsibility among all stakeholders. This would involve platform owners in the organization and design of platforms, users in taking collective responsibility for their own safety and health, and governments in creating guidelines and shared values . Platform Cooperativisim, as described by Trebor Scholz, is about embracing technology to create a democratically governed, cooperatively owned platform to facilitate the exchange of goods and services .…”

On social machines for algorithmic regulation

“…In fact, a choice of that kind would not be just a technical change but also a policy Answering these questions involves a perspective of cooperative responsibility as an ASM results from the dynamic interaction of different types of actors (the participants, the owners of the platforms, etc.) and requires developing a process of public deliberation (Helberger et al, 2018) An immediate dilemma emerging from this practice would be: should the scores be public?…”