Regulating datafication and platformization: Policy silos and tradeoffs in international platform inquiries

Abstract

A key concern in international policy debates about articulating oversight of digital platform markets involves policy silos, arising from the scope of platformization and datafication, and the challenges in defining their policy boundaries and coordinating a comprehensive policy response. This article examines how policymakers grapple with the problem by looking at a growing number of expert inquiries on digital platforms—a proxy for the international policy debate—that focus on policy problems ranging from market dominance and privacy risks to the spread of disinformation. Specifically, the article develops a schema of related policy silos and tradeoffs that arise in these debates: (1) policy area silos, (2) market/sectoral silos, (3) temporal silos, and (4) normative tradeoffs. Then, it critically examines the implications of these silos and tradeoffs for policy interventions aimed at addressing concerns related to datafication and platformization, raising key questions about the scope of and assumptions underlying platform regulation internationally and noting the way they constrain policy design and thwart more holistic policy solutions.

EU digital economy competition policy: From ex-post to ex-ante. The case of Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, and Meta

“…Yet over the past two decades, information has fragmented into new structures to include along with the media additional components such as big tech and telecommunications entities, individual citizens, state agents, and digital symbol creators (Benkler, 2006; Winseck, 2020). As significant as this is, it is the governance of internet gatekeepers, those who control the endpoint between content and end user, that represents the most disruptive change and pressing challenge (Flew, 2021; Popiel, 2022). As Winseck and Jin note, “people who embrace political economy do not just sit back passively on the receiving end of these changes but try to influence them by, among other things, doing policy-relevant research” (2012, p. 13).…”

“…The shared concerns of global inquiries enable policymakers to pursue avenues to reform the sector, yet Popiel (2022) highlights several challenges of competition policy and existing silos within a global context. Competition policy within the digital economy has thus far acted in an ex-post framework designed for static markets to be dealt with within national jurisdictions.…”

“…Ongoing deliberations with civil society, policymakers and digital platforms are doing much to ameliorate current threats that protect political welfare. However, public interest concerns are separated between different policies disregarding the effects one component might have on another (see also Popiel, 2022). As the EU’s Digital Markets Act becomes fully operational it remains to be seen whether large platforms and gatekeepers are more likely to litigate or comply (Macaulay, 2023).…”

“…As Van Dijck (2021) argues, “the complexities of platforms are increasingly at odds with the narrow legal and economic concepts in which their governance is grounded” (p. 2802). Policy reevaluation of the digital economy sector has focused on content moderation concerns, big data/privacy/surveillance, and competition (Popiel, 2022, p. 36). Competition policy illustrates the most problematic area since policymakers have been unsuccessful in the enforcement of current competition law upon AAAM (Budzinski & Menelsohn, 2021).…”

The Internet regulation turn? Policy, Internet and technology

“…Those considering the regulative aspects of the Internet and its platforms also seek clarity and reconceptualisation. Popiel (2021), in Regulating Datafication and Platformization: Policy Silos and Tradeoffs in International Platform Inquiries , asks, ‘do the policy analyses and recommended solutions match the scope of the problem they attempt to address?’. They present a schema for assessing policy silos and tradeoffs as a tool for thinking critically about policy design amid datafication and platformisation and to raise critical questions about the scope of and assumptions underlying platform regulation internationally.…”