Governing Platform Recommender Systems in Europe: Insights from China

Q2 Social Sciences
Global Jurist Pub Date : 2023-04-25 DOI:10.1515/gj-2023-0013
Urbano Reviglio, G. Santoni
{"title":"Governing Platform Recommender Systems in Europe: Insights from China","authors":"Urbano Reviglio, G. Santoni","doi":"10.1515/gj-2023-0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Platform Recommender Systems (PRSs) are the algorithmic systems employed by online platforms to recommend content to users. These systems have been recently targeted by policy-makers in Europe, mainly in the Digital Services Act (DSA). While much is discussed on the merits and limitations of the DSA, the very first world regulation of PRSs has been implemented by the People’s Republic of China since March 1st 2022. The article elaborates a critical comparative analysis of the governance of PRSs between the Chinese and European regulations. By contextualizing the highly diverse media environments, the article bridges the gaps between legal, technical and social sciences disciplines to elaborate insights that aim to contribute to the development of the governance of PRS. The article is divided as follows; firstly, an introduction to the governance of platforms RSs is done. Then, a contextualization of European and the Chinese legal and media environment is provided. Secondly, a legal comparative analysis is developed by analyzing two main areas: algorithmic accountability and self-determination. Thirdly, a discussion on the challenges of PRS governance is elaborated and, eventually, conclusions are drawn. From the comparison we have identified fundamental challenges and opportunities for the development of PRSs governance: (1) the methodological validity of social media research and the possibility to run on-platform experiments for more sounding policies; (2) the inherent reductionism of profiling and the need to tackle the implicit “engagement optimization” paradigm; (3) the systemic vulnerability of users and the need to improve detection, prevention and legal codification of algorithmic and design manipulation; (4) the complex entanglement of PRS governance with interface design, content moderation and content visibility moderation; finally, (5) the promising role of users to provide a second-order accountability as well as strenghten individual self-determination through forms of participatory governance.","PeriodicalId":34941,"journal":{"name":"Global Jurist","volume":"23 1","pages":"151 - 181"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Jurist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2023-0013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Platform Recommender Systems (PRSs) are the algorithmic systems employed by online platforms to recommend content to users. These systems have been recently targeted by policy-makers in Europe, mainly in the Digital Services Act (DSA). While much is discussed on the merits and limitations of the DSA, the very first world regulation of PRSs has been implemented by the People’s Republic of China since March 1st 2022. The article elaborates a critical comparative analysis of the governance of PRSs between the Chinese and European regulations. By contextualizing the highly diverse media environments, the article bridges the gaps between legal, technical and social sciences disciplines to elaborate insights that aim to contribute to the development of the governance of PRS. The article is divided as follows; firstly, an introduction to the governance of platforms RSs is done. Then, a contextualization of European and the Chinese legal and media environment is provided. Secondly, a legal comparative analysis is developed by analyzing two main areas: algorithmic accountability and self-determination. Thirdly, a discussion on the challenges of PRS governance is elaborated and, eventually, conclusions are drawn. From the comparison we have identified fundamental challenges and opportunities for the development of PRSs governance: (1) the methodological validity of social media research and the possibility to run on-platform experiments for more sounding policies; (2) the inherent reductionism of profiling and the need to tackle the implicit “engagement optimization” paradigm; (3) the systemic vulnerability of users and the need to improve detection, prevention and legal codification of algorithmic and design manipulation; (4) the complex entanglement of PRS governance with interface design, content moderation and content visibility moderation; finally, (5) the promising role of users to provide a second-order accountability as well as strenghten individual self-determination through forms of participatory governance.
欧洲的管理平台推荐系统:来自中国的启示
摘要平台推荐系统(PRS)是在线平台用来向用户推荐内容的算法系统。这些系统最近成为欧洲决策者的目标,主要是在《数字服务法》(DSA)中。尽管人们对DSA的优点和局限性进行了大量讨论,但中华人民共和国自2022年3月1日起实施了世界上第一个PRS法规。本文对中国和欧洲法规对PRS的治理进行了批判性的比较分析。通过将高度多样化的媒体环境置于背景中,文章弥合了法律、技术和社会科学学科之间的差距,以阐述旨在促进PRS治理发展的见解。文章分为以下几个部分:;首先,介绍了平台RS的治理。然后,对欧洲和中国的法律和媒体环境进行了背景分析。其次,通过分析两个主要领域:算法问责制和自决权,进行了法律比较分析。第三,详细讨论了减贫战略治理的挑战,并最终得出结论。从比较中,我们发现了PRS治理发展的根本挑战和机遇:(1)社交媒体研究的方法论有效性,以及在平台上进行更合理政策实验的可能性;(2) 剖析的固有还原论以及解决隐含的“参与优化”范式的必要性;(3) 用户的系统脆弱性以及改进算法和设计操纵的检测、预防和法律编纂的必要性;(4) PRS治理与界面设计、内容审核和内容可见性审核的复杂纠缠;最后,(5)用户在提供二阶问责制以及通过参与式治理形式加强个人自决方面的良好作用。
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
Global Jurist
Global Jurist Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Global Jurist offers a forum for scholarly cyber-debate on issues of comparative law, law and economics, international law, law and society, and legal anthropology. Edited by an international board of leading comparative law scholars from all the continents, Global Jurist is mindful of globalization and respectful of cultural differences. We will develop a truly international community of legal scholars where linguistic and cultural barriers are overcome and legal issues are finally discussed outside of the narrow limits imposed by positivism, parochialism, ethnocentrism, imperialism and chauvinism in the law. Submission is welcome from all over the world and particularly encouraged from the Global South.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信