How accountable are digital platforms?

Giles Moss, H. Ford
{"title":"How accountable are digital platforms?","authors":"Giles Moss, H. Ford","doi":"10.31235/osf.io/tx2db","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter focuses on the accountability of platforms – a key question for researchers of digital politics. We set out a research agenda for answering the question of how platform power is held accountable that is both empirical and normative. Empirically, we emphasize the need to trace how accountability actually operates in practice. What accountability mechanisms exist, how are they used by publics, how do platforms respond, and with what effects? At the same time, we outline a normative agenda to investigate what genuine accountability requires and how existing accountability practices compare to this standard. Informed by deliberative approaches to democracy, and drawing in particular on Rainer Forst’s work on justification, we argue that the accountability of platforms is a question of their power being justified adequately to affected publics and that this depends on the quality of the discursive processes through which decisions about platforms are justified. Focusing on the quality of discursive processes allows us to distinguish critically between cases where publics merely accept platform power, unreflectively and in contexts of limited information and choice, to cases where power is justified through good reasons tested through inclusive public discourse.","PeriodicalId":161108,"journal":{"name":"A Research Agenda for Digital Politics","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"A Research Agenda for Digital Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/tx2db","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the accountability of platforms – a key question for researchers of digital politics. We set out a research agenda for answering the question of how platform power is held accountable that is both empirical and normative. Empirically, we emphasize the need to trace how accountability actually operates in practice. What accountability mechanisms exist, how are they used by publics, how do platforms respond, and with what effects? At the same time, we outline a normative agenda to investigate what genuine accountability requires and how existing accountability practices compare to this standard. Informed by deliberative approaches to democracy, and drawing in particular on Rainer Forst’s work on justification, we argue that the accountability of platforms is a question of their power being justified adequately to affected publics and that this depends on the quality of the discursive processes through which decisions about platforms are justified. Focusing on the quality of discursive processes allows us to distinguish critically between cases where publics merely accept platform power, unreflectively and in contexts of limited information and choice, to cases where power is justified through good reasons tested through inclusive public discourse.
数字平台有多负责任?
本章重点关注平台的问责制——这是数字政治研究人员的一个关键问题。我们制定了一个研究议程,以回答如何对平台权力负责的问题,这既是经验的,也是规范的。从经验上讲,我们强调需要追踪问责制在实践中是如何实际运作的。存在什么样的问责机制,公众如何使用这些机制,平台如何回应,产生了什么影响?与此同时,我们概述了一个规范性议程,以调查真正的问责制需要什么,以及现有的问责制实践如何与这一标准进行比较。通过对民主的审议方法的了解,并特别借鉴Rainer Forst关于正当性的工作,我们认为,平台的问责制是一个问题,即它们的权力是否对受影响的公众充分证明是正当的,而这取决于关于平台的决定是正当的话语过程的质量。关注话语过程的质量使我们能够批判性地区分公众仅仅接受平台权力的情况,在有限的信息和选择的背景下,以及通过包容性公共话语测试的充分理由来证明权力的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信