胜任第三方与平台内容审核:治理结构视角下独立决策主体的潜力

IF 1 Q3 COMMUNICATION
A. Heldt, Stephan Dreyer
{"title":"胜任第三方与平台内容审核:治理结构视角下独立决策主体的潜力","authors":"A. Heldt, Stephan Dreyer","doi":"10.5325/jinfopoli.11.2021.0266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"After many years of much-criticized opacity in the field of content moderation, social media platforms are now opening up to a dialogue with users and policymakers. Until now, liability frameworks in the United States and in the European Union (EU) have set incentives for platforms not to monitor user-generated content—an increasingly contested model that has led to (inter alia) practices and policies of noncontainment. Following discussions on platform power over online speech and how contentious content benefits the attention economy, there is an observable shift toward stricter content moderation duties in addition to more responsibility with regard to content. Nevertheless, much remains unsolved: the legitimacy of platforms’ content moderation rules and decisions is still questioned. The platforms’ power over the vast majority of communication in the digital sphere is still difficult to grasp because of its nature as private, yet often perceived as public. To address this issue, we use a governance structure perspective to identify potential regulatory advantages of establishing cross-platform external bodies for content moderation, ultimately aiming at providing insights about the opportunities and limitations of such a model.","PeriodicalId":55617,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Competent Third Parties and Content Moderation on Platforms: Potentials of Independent Decision-Making Bodies From A Governance Structure Perspective\",\"authors\":\"A. Heldt, Stephan Dreyer\",\"doi\":\"10.5325/jinfopoli.11.2021.0266\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"After many years of much-criticized opacity in the field of content moderation, social media platforms are now opening up to a dialogue with users and policymakers. Until now, liability frameworks in the United States and in the European Union (EU) have set incentives for platforms not to monitor user-generated content—an increasingly contested model that has led to (inter alia) practices and policies of noncontainment. Following discussions on platform power over online speech and how contentious content benefits the attention economy, there is an observable shift toward stricter content moderation duties in addition to more responsibility with regard to content. Nevertheless, much remains unsolved: the legitimacy of platforms’ content moderation rules and decisions is still questioned. The platforms’ power over the vast majority of communication in the digital sphere is still difficult to grasp because of its nature as private, yet often perceived as public. To address this issue, we use a governance structure perspective to identify potential regulatory advantages of establishing cross-platform external bodies for content moderation, ultimately aiming at providing insights about the opportunities and limitations of such a model.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55617,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Information Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Information Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.11.2021.0266\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Information Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.11.2021.0266","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

多年来,社交媒体平台在内容审核领域的不透明备受批评,如今,它们开始与用户和政策制定者展开对话。到目前为止,美国和欧盟(EU)的责任框架已经为不监控用户生成内容的平台设置了激励机制——这是一种越来越有争议的模式,导致了(除其他外)不遏制的做法和政策。在讨论了平台对网络言论的影响力以及有争议的内容如何有利于注意力经济之后,除了对内容承担更多责任外,还出现了一种明显的转向,即更严格的内容审核义务。然而,仍有许多问题有待解决:平台内容审核规则和决策的合法性仍受到质疑。这些平台对数字领域绝大多数交流的影响力仍然难以把握,因为它们的本质是私人的,但往往被视为公共的。为了解决这个问题,我们使用治理结构的视角来确定为内容审核建立跨平台外部机构的潜在监管优势,最终目的是提供有关这种模型的机会和局限性的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Competent Third Parties and Content Moderation on Platforms: Potentials of Independent Decision-Making Bodies From A Governance Structure Perspective
After many years of much-criticized opacity in the field of content moderation, social media platforms are now opening up to a dialogue with users and policymakers. Until now, liability frameworks in the United States and in the European Union (EU) have set incentives for platforms not to monitor user-generated content—an increasingly contested model that has led to (inter alia) practices and policies of noncontainment. Following discussions on platform power over online speech and how contentious content benefits the attention economy, there is an observable shift toward stricter content moderation duties in addition to more responsibility with regard to content. Nevertheless, much remains unsolved: the legitimacy of platforms’ content moderation rules and decisions is still questioned. The platforms’ power over the vast majority of communication in the digital sphere is still difficult to grasp because of its nature as private, yet often perceived as public. To address this issue, we use a governance structure perspective to identify potential regulatory advantages of establishing cross-platform external bodies for content moderation, ultimately aiming at providing insights about the opportunities and limitations of such a model.
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
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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