Who is responsible for interventions against problematic comments? Comparing user attitudes in Germany and the United States

IF 4.1 1区文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION

Policy and Internet Pub Date : 2021-05-14 DOI:10.1002/POI3.257

Martin J. Riedl, Teresa K. Naab, Gina M. Masullo, Pablo Jost, Marc Ziegele

{"title":"Who is responsible for interventions against problematic comments? Comparing user attitudes in Germany and the United States","authors":"Martin J. Riedl, Teresa K. Naab, Gina M. Masullo, Pablo Jost, Marc Ziegele","doi":"10.1002/POI3.257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Online comment sections on news organizations' social media pages provide a unique forum for exploring attitudes toward platform governance and freedom of expression at the crossroads between people, platforms, and news providers. Amid ample political and policy interest, little empirical evidence exists on user perceptions of platform governance. Through survey studies in Germany ( n = 1155) and the United States ( n = 1164), we provide a comparative perspective on responsibility attributions toward different regulatory actors who may intervene against problematic user comments: the state (law enforcement), platform operators (Facebook), news organizations, and users themselves. We explore this against the backdrop of different notions of free speech and cultural differences in the two countries. We ﬁ nd that Germans attribute greater responsibility for intervention to the state, Facebook, and news organizations than Americans. They also assume greater self ‐ responsibility. While support for free speech did not impact responsibility attribution to Facebook, news organizations, or the users themselves, people with","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.257","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Internet","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.257","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 12

Abstract

Online comment sections on news organizations' social media pages provide a unique forum for exploring attitudes toward platform governance and freedom of expression at the crossroads between people, platforms, and news providers. Amid ample political and policy interest, little empirical evidence exists on user perceptions of platform governance. Through survey studies in Germany ( n = 1155) and the United States ( n = 1164), we provide a comparative perspective on responsibility attributions toward different regulatory actors who may intervene against problematic user comments: the state (law enforcement), platform operators (Facebook), news organizations, and users themselves. We explore this against the backdrop of different notions of free speech and cultural differences in the two countries. We ﬁ nd that Germans attribute greater responsibility for intervention to the state, Facebook, and news organizations than Americans. They also assume greater self ‐ responsibility. While support for free speech did not impact responsibility attribution to Facebook, news organizations, or the users themselves, people with

查看原文本刊更多论文

谁负责对有问题的评论进行干预?比较德国和美国的用户态度

新闻机构社交媒体页面上的在线评论部分提供了一个独特的论坛，可以探讨人们、平台和新闻提供商之间对平台治理和言论自由的态度。在大量的政治和政策兴趣中，关于用户对平台治理的看法，几乎没有实证证据。通过在德国（n=1155）和美国（n=1164）进行的调查研究，我们对可能对有问题的用户评论进行干预的不同监管行为者的责任归属提供了一个比较视角：国家（执法部门）、平台运营商（脸书）、新闻机构和用户本身。我们在两国不同的言论自由观念和文化差异的背景下探讨这一点。我们发现，与美国人相比，德国人将更大的干预责任归咎于国家、脸书和新闻机构。他们还承担了更大的自我责任。虽然对言论自由的支持不会影响责任归属于脸书、新闻机构或用户本身，但

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

Policy and Internet Multiple-

CiteScore

8.40

自引率

10.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Understanding public policy in the age of the Internet requires understanding how individuals, organizations, governments and networks behave, and what motivates them in this new environment. Technological innovation and internet-mediated interaction raise both challenges and opportunities for public policy: whether in areas that have received much work already (e.g. digital divides, digital government, and privacy) or newer areas, like regulation of data-intensive technologies and platforms, the rise of precarious labour, and regulatory responses to misinformation and hate speech. We welcome innovative research in areas where the Internet already impacts public policy, where it raises new challenges or dilemmas, or provides opportunities for policy that is smart and equitable. While we welcome perspectives from any academic discipline, we look particularly for insight that can feed into social science disciplines like political science, public administration, economics, sociology, and communication. We welcome articles that introduce methodological innovation, theoretical development, or rigorous data analysis concerning a particular question or problem of public policy.