调节透明度?: Facebook、Twitter和德国网络执法法案

B. Wagner, Krisztina Rozgonyi, Marie-Theres Sekwenz, Jennifer Cobbe, Jatinder Singh
{"title":"调节透明度?: Facebook、Twitter和德国网络执法法案","authors":"B. Wagner, Krisztina Rozgonyi, Marie-Theres Sekwenz, Jennifer Cobbe, Jatinder Singh","doi":"10.1145/3351095.3372856","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Regulatory regimes designed to ensure transparency often struggle to ensure that transparency is meaningful in practice. This challenge is particularly great when coupled with the widespread usage of dark patterns --- design techniques used to manipulate users. The following article analyses the implementation of the transparency provisions of the German Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) by Facebook and Twitter, as well as the consequences of these implementations for the effective regulation of online platforms. This question of effective regulation is particularly salient, due to an enforcement action in 2019 by Germany's Federal Office of Justice (BfJ) against Facebook for what the BfJ claim were insufficient compliance with transparency requirements, under NetzDG. This article provides an overview of the transparency requirements of NetzDG and contrasts these with the transparency requirements of other relevant regulations. It will then discuss how transparency concerns not only providing data, but also how the visibility of the data that is made transparent is managed, by deciding how the data is provided and is framed. We will then provide an empirical analysis of the design choices made by Facebook and Twitter, to assess the ways in which their implementations differ. The consequences of these two divergent implementations on interface design and user behaviour are then discussed, through a comparison of the transparency reports and reporting mechanisms used by Facebook and Twitter. As a next step, we will discuss the BfJ's consideration of the design of Facebook's content reporting mechanisms, and what this reveals about their respective interpretations of NetzDG's scope. Finally, in recognising that this situation is one in which a regulator is considering design as part of their action - we develop a wider argument on the potential for regulatory enforcement around dark patterns, and design practices more generally, for which this case is an early, indicative example.","PeriodicalId":377829,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"38","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Regulating transparency?: Facebook, Twitter and the German Network Enforcement Act\",\"authors\":\"B. Wagner, Krisztina Rozgonyi, Marie-Theres Sekwenz, Jennifer Cobbe, Jatinder Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3351095.3372856\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Regulatory regimes designed to ensure transparency often struggle to ensure that transparency is meaningful in practice. This challenge is particularly great when coupled with the widespread usage of dark patterns --- design techniques used to manipulate users. The following article analyses the implementation of the transparency provisions of the German Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) by Facebook and Twitter, as well as the consequences of these implementations for the effective regulation of online platforms. This question of effective regulation is particularly salient, due to an enforcement action in 2019 by Germany's Federal Office of Justice (BfJ) against Facebook for what the BfJ claim were insufficient compliance with transparency requirements, under NetzDG. This article provides an overview of the transparency requirements of NetzDG and contrasts these with the transparency requirements of other relevant regulations. It will then discuss how transparency concerns not only providing data, but also how the visibility of the data that is made transparent is managed, by deciding how the data is provided and is framed. We will then provide an empirical analysis of the design choices made by Facebook and Twitter, to assess the ways in which their implementations differ. The consequences of these two divergent implementations on interface design and user behaviour are then discussed, through a comparison of the transparency reports and reporting mechanisms used by Facebook and Twitter. As a next step, we will discuss the BfJ's consideration of the design of Facebook's content reporting mechanisms, and what this reveals about their respective interpretations of NetzDG's scope. Finally, in recognising that this situation is one in which a regulator is considering design as part of their action - we develop a wider argument on the potential for regulatory enforcement around dark patterns, and design practices more generally, for which this case is an early, indicative example.\",\"PeriodicalId\":377829,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"38\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372856\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372856","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 38

摘要

旨在确保透明度的监管制度往往难以确保透明度在实践中具有意义。当与广泛使用的暗模式(用于操纵用户的设计技术)相结合时,这一挑战尤其巨大。以下文章分析了Facebook和Twitter对德国网络执法法案(NetzDG)透明度条款的实施情况,以及这些实施对在线平台有效监管的影响。由于德国联邦司法办公室(BfJ)在2019年对Facebook采取了执法行动,因为BfJ声称Facebook没有充分遵守NetzDG规定的透明度要求,因此有效监管的问题尤为突出。本文概述了NetzDG的透明度要求,并将其与其他相关法规的透明度要求进行了对比。然后,它将讨论透明度如何不仅涉及提供数据,还涉及如何通过决定数据的提供方式和框架来管理透明数据的可见性。然后,我们将对Facebook和Twitter所做的设计选择进行实证分析,以评估它们在实现方面的不同。然后,通过对Facebook和Twitter使用的透明度报告和报告机制的比较,讨论了这两种不同实现对界面设计和用户行为的影响。下一步,我们将讨论BfJ对Facebook内容报告机制设计的考虑,以及这揭示了他们各自对NetzDG范围的解释。最后,在认识到这种情况是监管机构将设计视为其行动的一部分的情况下,我们就围绕黑暗模式和更广泛的设计实践进行监管执法的可能性展开了更广泛的争论,该案例是一个早期的指示性例子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Regulating transparency?: Facebook, Twitter and the German Network Enforcement Act
Regulatory regimes designed to ensure transparency often struggle to ensure that transparency is meaningful in practice. This challenge is particularly great when coupled with the widespread usage of dark patterns --- design techniques used to manipulate users. The following article analyses the implementation of the transparency provisions of the German Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) by Facebook and Twitter, as well as the consequences of these implementations for the effective regulation of online platforms. This question of effective regulation is particularly salient, due to an enforcement action in 2019 by Germany's Federal Office of Justice (BfJ) against Facebook for what the BfJ claim were insufficient compliance with transparency requirements, under NetzDG. This article provides an overview of the transparency requirements of NetzDG and contrasts these with the transparency requirements of other relevant regulations. It will then discuss how transparency concerns not only providing data, but also how the visibility of the data that is made transparent is managed, by deciding how the data is provided and is framed. We will then provide an empirical analysis of the design choices made by Facebook and Twitter, to assess the ways in which their implementations differ. The consequences of these two divergent implementations on interface design and user behaviour are then discussed, through a comparison of the transparency reports and reporting mechanisms used by Facebook and Twitter. As a next step, we will discuss the BfJ's consideration of the design of Facebook's content reporting mechanisms, and what this reveals about their respective interpretations of NetzDG's scope. Finally, in recognising that this situation is one in which a regulator is considering design as part of their action - we develop a wider argument on the potential for regulatory enforcement around dark patterns, and design practices more generally, for which this case is an early, indicative example.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信