Evaluating the legitimacy of platform governance: A review of research and a shared research agenda

International Communication Gazette

Volumn 80, Issue 4, 2018, Pages 385-400

  Suzor, Nicolas ^a   Van Geelen, Tess ^a   Myers West, Sarah ^b  

^a QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Digital constitutionalism; empirical methods; governance; human rights; index; intermediaries; legitimacy; rule of law

Indexed keywords

EID: 85042084841     PISSN: 17480485     EISSN: 17480493     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1748048518757142     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Access Now (2016) Transparency Reporting Index. Available at: https://www.accessnow.org/transparency-reporting-index/ (accessed 28 February 2017)
2. Black J, (2001) Decentring regulation: Understanding the role of regulation and self-regulation in a ‘post-regulatory’ world. Current Legal Problems 54(1): 103–146.
3. Brown I and Korff D (2012) Digital freedoms in international law. Report for the global network initiative. Available at: https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/Digital%20Freedoms%20in%20International%20Law.pdf (accessed 28 February 2017)
4. Buni C and Chemal S (2016) The secret rules of the internet: The murky history of moderation, and how it's shaping the future of free speech. The Verge. Available at: http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/13/11387934/internet-moderator-history-youtube-facebook-reddit-censorship-free-speech (accessed 11 May 2016)
5. Burgess J, (2015) From ‘broadcast yourself’ to ‘follow your interests’: Making over social media. International Journal of Cultural Studies 18(3): 281–285.
6. Burris S, Kempa M, Shearing C, (2008) Changes in governance: A cross-disciplinary review of current scholarship. Akron Law Review 41: 1–66.
7. Castells M, (2012) Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age, Cambridge: Polity Press.
8. Citron DK, (2014) Hate Crimes in Cyberspace, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
9. Citron DK, Pasquale FA, (2014) The scored society: Due process for automated predictions. Washington Law Review. 89,. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2376209 (accessed 30 June 2015).
10. Cooley A, Snyder J, (2015) Ranking the World, Cambridge Core. Available at: /core/books/ranking-the-world/CC428C9015C2D6656218795F649D9BBC (accessed 19 February 2017).
11. DeNardis L, (2009) Protocol Politics: The Globalization of Internet Governance, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: MIT Press.
12. DeNardis L, (2012) Hidden levers of internet control. Information, Communication & Society 15(5): 720–738.
13. DeNardis L, (2013) The emerging field of internet governance. In: Dutton WH, (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 555–576.
14. DeNardis L, (2014) The Global War for Internet Governance, New Haven, Connecticut, USA: Yale University Press.
15. DeNardis L, Hackl A, (2015) Internet governance by social media platforms. Telecommunications Policy, Special Issue on the Governance of Social Media 39(9): 761–770.
16. Dewey C (2016) Facebook is tracking ‘trends,’ so we're tracking Facebook. The Washington Post, 31st August. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/08/31/facebook-is-tracking-trends-so-were-tracking-facebook/ (accessed 17 February 2017)
17. Diakopoulos N, (2014) Algorithmic accountability: on the investigation of black boxes. Tow Centre for Digital Journalism. Available at: http://towcenter.org/research/algorithmic-accountability-on-the-investigation-of-black-boxes-2/ (accessed 20 April 2016).
18. Diakopoulos N, (2015) Algorithmic accountability. Journalistic investigation of computational power structures. Digital Journalism 3(3): 398–415.
19. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (1998) 112 Stat. 2860, H.R. 2281, USA; 105-304 (enacted October 28, 1998)
20. Edelman BG and Luca M (2014) Digital discrimination: The case of Airbnb.com. Harvard Business School, Harvard Business School Working Papers: 14-054, 2014, p. 21, Available at: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/digital-discrimination-the-case-of-airbnb-com
21. European Commission (2013) ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/publications/european-commission-sector-guides-implementing-un-guiding-principles-business-and-hum-0_en (accessed 14 February 2017)
22. Gill L, Redeker D and Gasser U (2015) Towards digital constitutionalism? Mapping attempts to craft an internet bill of rights. Berkman Centre for Law and Society Research Publication No. 2015-15. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2687120 (accessed 1 February 2016)
23. Global Network Initiative (2012) Principles on freedom of expression and privacy. Available at: https://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/principles/index.php (accessed 2 June 2015)
24. Goldsmith J, Wu T, (2006) Who Controls the Internet? The Illusions of a Borderless World, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25. Green M, (2001) What we mean when we talk about indicators: Current approaches to human rights measurement. Human Rights Quarterly 23(4): 1062–1097.
26. Hofmann J, Katzenbach C, Gollatz K, (2016) Between coordination and regulation: Finding the governance in Internet governance. New Media & Society 19(9): 1406–1423.
27. Hyden G, Samuel J, (2011) Making the State Responsive: Experience With Democratic Governance Assessments, New York: United Nations Development Program. Available at: http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/documents/partners/civil_society/additional_documents/Africa%20Forum%20on%20Civil%20Society%20and%20Governance%20Assessments/Making%20the%20state%20responsive.pdf (accessed 23 February 2017).
28. Internet Rights and Principles Coalition (IRPC) (2014) Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet. Internet Rights and Principles Coalition. Available at: http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/wpcharter/ (accessed 18 February 2015)
29. Kaye D, (2016) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations, Human Rights Council. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/Privatesectorinthedigitalage.aspx (accessed 16 February 2017).
30. Langford M, Fukuda-Parr S, (2012) The turn to metrics. Nordic Journal of Human Rights 30(3): 222–238.
31. Langlois G, Slane A, (2017) Economies of reputation: the case of revenge porn. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 14(2): 120–138.
32. MacKinnon R, Maréchal N and Kumar P (2016) Corporate Accountability for a Free and Open Internet. Global Commission on Internet Governance Paper Series. Available at: https://www.cigionline.org/publications/corporate-accountability-free-and-open-internet (accessed 14 February 2017)
33. Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability (2015) Available at: https://www.manilaprinciples.org/ (accessed 27 November 2015)
34. Maréchal N, (2015) Ranking digital rights: Human rights, the internet and the fifth estate. International Journal of Communication 9(10): 3440–3449.
35. Massanari A, (2015) #Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit's algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media & Society 19(3): 329–346.
36. Milan S and Ten Oever N (2016) Coding and encoding rights in internet infrastructure. Sociotechnical imaginaries and grassroots ordering in internet governance. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2875816 (accessed 28 February 2017)
37. Mueller M, (2002) Ruling the Root, Cambridge: MIT Press.
38. Mueller M, (2010) Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance. Information Revolution and Global Politics, Cambridge: MIT Press.
39. Musiani F, Cogburn DL, DeNardis L, (2016) The Turn to Infrastructure in Internet Governance. Information Technology and Global Governance, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
40. OECD (2010) The Economic and Social Role of Internet Intermediaries. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/44949023.pdf (accessed 8 July 2016)
41. Panigrahi S, (2015) Rising voices: Indigenous language digital activism. In: Shah N, Sneha PP, Chattapadhyay S, (eds) Digital Activism in Asia Reader, Lüneburg: Meson Press, pp. 155–158. Available at: http://nbn-resolving.de/http://dx.doi.org/10.14619/013 (accessed 27 February 2017).
42. Pasquale F, (2015) The Black Box Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43. Perel M and Elkin-Koren N (2016) Black box tinkering: Beyond transparency in algorithmic enforcement. Florida Law Review (Forthcoming). Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2741513 (accessed 1 September 2016)
44. Ranking Digital Rights (2015) 2015 Corporate Accountability Index. Ranking Digital Rights and Sustainalytics. Available at: https://rankingdigitalrights.org/ (accessed 11 May 2016)
45. Roberts ST, (2014) Behind the Screen: The Hidden Digital Labor of Commercial Content Moderation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Available at: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/50401 (accessed 27 February 2017).
46. Rosen J (2013) The delete squad. New Republic. Available at: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113045/free-speech-internet-silicon-valley-making-rules (accessed 9 September 2014)
47. Rosenblat A, Kneese T, boyd d, (2014) Algorithmic Accountability, New York: Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2535540 (accessed 14 July 2016).
48. Ruggie J, (2008) Protect, respect and remedy: A framework for business and human rights. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization 3(2): 189–212.
49. Sandvig C, Hamilton K, Karahalios K, (2014) An algorithm audit. In: Gangadharan SP, Eubanks V, Barocas S, (eds) Data and Discrimination: Selected Essays, Open Technology Institute and New America, pp. 6–10. Available at: https://www.newamerica.org/oti/policy-papers/data-and-discrimination/ (accessed 10 July 2016).
50. Shepherd T, Harvey A, Jordan T, (2015) Histories of hating. Social Media and Society 1(2). Epub ahead of print 30 September 2015. DOI: 10.1177/2056305115603997.
51. Stein L, (2013) Policy and participation on social media: The cases of YouTube, Facebook, and Wikipedia. Communication, Culture & Critique 6(3): 353–371.
52. Suzor N, (2011) The role of the rule of law in virtual communities. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 25: 1819–1886.
53. Suzor N, (2012) Order supported by law: The enforcement of norms in virtual communities. Mercer Law Review 63: 523–595.
54. Suzor N, Woodford D, (2013) Evaluating consent and legitimacy amongst shifting community norms: An EVE online case study. Journal For Virtual Worlds Research 6(3): 1–14.
55. Thomas CA, (2014) The uses and abuses of legitimacy in international law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 34(4): 729–758.
56. Tufekci Z, Wilson C, (2012) Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication 62(2): 363–379.
57. UNESCO (2014) Fostering Freedom Online: The Role of Internet Intermediaries. UNESCO. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002311/231162e.pdf (accessed 10 July 2016)
58. United Nations (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III)
59. United Nations (1965) International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 21 December 1965, UNTS vol. 660, p. 195 (entered into force 4 January 1969)
60. United Nations (1966) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, UNTS vol. 999, p. 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976)
61. United Nations (1976) International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, UNTS vol. 993, p. 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976)
62. United Nations (1979) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 18 December 1979, UNTS vol. 1249, p. 13 (entered into force 3 September 1981)
63. United Nations (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1577, p. 3 (entered into force 2 September 1990)
64. United Nations General Assembly (2006) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 24 January 2007, A/RES/61/106
65. United Nations (2011) Guiding principles on business and human rights. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/GuidingprinciplesBusinesshr_en.pdf (accessed 1 April 2016)
66. Urban JM, Karaganis J and Schofield BL (2016) Notice and Takedown in Everyday Practice. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2755628 (accessed 1 April 2016)
67. Urban JM, Quilter L, (2006) Efficient process or ‘chilling effects’? Takedown notices under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal 22: 621.
68. Venturini J, Louzada L, Maciel M, (2016) Terms of Service and Human Rights: An Analysis of Online Platform Contracts, Rio de Janeiro: Editora Revan. Available at: http://internet-governance.fgv.br/sites/internet-governance.fgv.br/files/publicacoes/terms_of_services_06_12_2016.pdf (accessed 1 April 2016).
69. Witt A, Suzor N, Wikström P, (2015) Regulating ride-sharing in the peer economy. Communication Research and Practice 1(2): 174–190.
70. Woodlock D (2016) The abuse of technology in domestic violence and stalking. Violence Against Women. 23: 584–602
71. Woolery L, Budish RH, Bankston K, (2016) The Transparency Reporting Toolkit: Best Practices for Reporting on US Government Requests for User Information, New America Foundation and The Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Available at: https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/28552578 (accessed 23 February 2017).
72. Zeng J, Chan C and Fu K (2016) What is social media platforms’ role in constructing ‘truth’ around crisis events? A case study of Weibo's rumour management strategies after the 2015 Tianjin blasts. In: Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford. Available at: http://ipp.oii.ox.ac.uk/sites/ipp/files/documents/TianjinBlastFullPaper_14Aug.pdf (accessed 16 December 2016)
73. Zukin S, Lindeman S, Hurson L, (2015) The omnivore's neighborhood? Online restaurant reviews, race, and gentrification. Journal of Consumer Culture. 17: 459–479.