Social media governance and strategies to combat online hatespeech in Germany

IF 4.1 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Policy and Internet Pub Date : 2023-06-14 DOI:10.1002/poi3.348
Daniela Stockmann, Sophia Schlosser, Paxia Ksatryo
{"title":"Social media governance and strategies to combat online hatespeech in Germany","authors":"Daniela Stockmann, Sophia Schlosser, Paxia Ksatryo","doi":"10.1002/poi3.348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Concerns over online hatespeech have prompted governments to strengthen social media governance. However, claims by policy‐makers and political activists regarding the effectiveness and likely consequences of legal regulations remain largely untested. We rely on qualitative interviews and two expert surveys to examine the behavior of public relations professionals in response to online hatespeech when having the option of using the new user‐complaint mechanism under the German Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG). Our findings reveal that strategies depend on whether professionals work at public sector institutions, business, or civil society organizations and political parties. Public sector institutions are likely to report to the platform, but not under NetzDG. Civil society organizations are likely to choose content moderation, counterspeech, and other forms of intervention. Businesses deploy a wide range of strategies. In practice, Germany's procedural approach relying on user‐complaint mechanisms to deal with online hatespeech is not used by experts as a means to combat online harassment.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Internet","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.348","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: 1

Abstract

Abstract Concerns over online hatespeech have prompted governments to strengthen social media governance. However, claims by policy‐makers and political activists regarding the effectiveness and likely consequences of legal regulations remain largely untested. We rely on qualitative interviews and two expert surveys to examine the behavior of public relations professionals in response to online hatespeech when having the option of using the new user‐complaint mechanism under the German Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG). Our findings reveal that strategies depend on whether professionals work at public sector institutions, business, or civil society organizations and political parties. Public sector institutions are likely to report to the platform, but not under NetzDG. Civil society organizations are likely to choose content moderation, counterspeech, and other forms of intervention. Businesses deploy a wide range of strategies. In practice, Germany's procedural approach relying on user‐complaint mechanisms to deal with online hatespeech is not used by experts as a means to combat online harassment.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
德国的社交媒体治理和打击网络仇恨言论的策略
对网络仇恨言论的担忧促使各国政府加强对社交媒体的治理。然而,政策制定者和政治活动家关于法律法规的有效性和可能后果的说法在很大程度上仍未经检验。我们依靠定性访谈和两次专家调查来检查公共关系专业人员在使用德国网络执法法案(NetzDG)下的新用户投诉机制时对在线仇恨言论的反应行为。我们的研究结果表明,策略取决于专业人员是否在公共部门机构、企业或民间社会组织和政党工作。公共部门机构可能会向该平台报告,但不会向NetzDG报告。民间社会组织可能会选择内容节制、反言论和其他形式的干预。企业采用各种各样的策略。在实践中,德国依靠用户投诉机制来处理网络仇恨言论的程序性方法并没有被专家用作打击网络骚扰的手段。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
10.20%
发文量
51
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.
期刊最新文献
Effects of online citizen participation on legitimacy beliefs in local government. Evidence from a comparative study of online participation platforms in three German municipalities “Highly nuanced policy is very difficult to apply at scale”: Examining researcher account and content takedowns online Special issue: The (international) politics of content takedowns: Theory, practice, ethics Countering online terrorist content: A social regulation approach Content takedowns and activist organizing: Impact of social media content moderation on activists and organizing
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1