Regulation of and by Platforms

Abstract

Platforms rose up out of the exquisite chaos of the web. Their founders were inspired by the freedom it promised, but also hoped to provide spaces for the web's best and most social aspects. But as these platforms grew, the chaos found its way back onto them-for obvious reasons: if I want to say something, be it inspiring or reprehensible, I want to say it where people are likely to hear me. Today, we by and large speak on platforms when we're online. Social media platforms put people at "zero distance" (Searls, 2016) from one another, afford them new opportunities to speak and interact, and organize them into networked publics (Varnelis, 2008; boyd, 2011)-and though the benefits of this may be obvious, even seem utopian at times, the perils are also painfully apparent. While scholars have long discussed the dynamics of free speech online, much of that thinking preceded the dramatic migration of online discourse to platforms (Balkin, 2004; Godwin, 2003; Lessig, 1999; Litman, 1999). By platforms, I mean sites and services that host public expression, store it on and serve it up from the cloud, organize access to it through search and recommendation, or install it onto mobile devices.

How Social Media Construct “Truth” Around Crisis Events: Weibo's Rumor Management Strategies After the 2015 Tianjin Blasts

“…The inconsistency of Weibo's responses to rumor supports Gillespie's () concern over the social media platform's practice of content moderation. Gillespie () argues that it is difficult for the online platforms to apply consistent strategies to regulate content, and this inconsistency suggests subjectivity, bias, and self‐interest in the platform's regulatory policies.…”

“…The inconsistency of Weibo's responses to rumor supports Gillespie's () concern over the social media platform's practice of content moderation. Gillespie () argues that it is difficult for the online platforms to apply consistent strategies to regulate content, and this inconsistency suggests subjectivity, bias, and self‐interest in the platform's regulatory policies. In the Chinese context, the practice of content moderation by social media platforms is not only driven by commercial interests, but also by political pressure from the government (Benney, ; Meng, ).…”

“…Back‐end politics involves the logics and practices of the algorithms, whereas front‐end politics is represented by how an interface is designed to alter how users engage with information and each other. Rogers’ (, p. 2) analysis focuses on issues related to fairness, representation, and inclusiveness of sources on the Web, and argues that both front‐ and back‐end politics contribute to the “demise of alternative accounts of reality.” Gillespie () proposed another model to analyze content moderation on social media platforms, suggesting there are two common ways through which platforms manage inappropriate content: removing it or marking it as such. Gillespie () argues that both approaches are problematic because removal “opens platforms to charges of subjectivity, hypocrisy, political conservatism, and self‐interest,” and marking causes problems when it is used too often or when the determination is over‐reliant on algorithms despite its less invasive nature.…”

Taming the Internet Trolls With an Internet Ombudsperson: Ethical Social Media Regulation

“…Social media platforms are “the sites and services that host, organize, and circulate users’ shared content or social exchanges for them; without having produced or commissioned [the majority of] that content” (Gillespie, , p. 254). These Internet platforms, often referred to as Online Service Providers, have flourished in the last decade as social life online has become increasingly concentrated in the social media sphere (DeNardis & Hackl, ; Taddeo & Floridi, ; Wentrup & Ström, ).…”

“…Second, the article suggests blockchain technology as a potential infrastructure for the Internet ombudsperson, thus contributing to the literature dealing with the different potential uses of this technology in a policy context (Peters & Panayi, ; Swan, ; Ziskind, Nathan, & Pentland, ). Finally, this article offers new practical ways of dealing with social media regulation (Gillespie, ; Kaye, ; Suzor et al, ). We begin by explaining why there is a need for an Internet ombudsperson as an ethical regulator of social media platforms.…”