Private Governance of Freedom of Expression on Social Media Platforms: EU content regulation through the lens of human rights standards

IF 2 Q2 COMMUNICATION Nordicom Review Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.2478/nor-2020-0003
R. Jørgensen, L. Zuleta
{"title":"Private Governance of Freedom of Expression on Social Media Platforms: EU content regulation through the lens of human rights standards","authors":"R. Jørgensen, L. Zuleta","doi":"10.2478/nor-2020-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract For years, social media platforms have been perceived as a democratic gain, facilitating freedom of expression, easy access to a variety of information, and new means of public participation. At the same time, social media have enabled the dissemination of illegal content and incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, fuelling several content regulation initiatives. From the perspective of freedom of expression, this development embraces two challenges: first, private actors govern freedom of expression, without human rights safeguards; second, this privatised governance of human rights is encouraged and legitimised by a broad range of EU policy initiatives. Informed by an analysis of Danish Facebook users’ attitudes toward public debate on Facebook, we pose the question: How do social media companies such as Facebook balance various human rights considerations on their platforms, particularly in relation to freedom of expression? We analyse the abovementioned challenges through a human rights lens, which serves as the analytical framework for this article. Further, we suggest some strategies for moving forward, drawing on recent recommendations from the UN human rights system.","PeriodicalId":45517,"journal":{"name":"Nordicom Review","volume":"41 1","pages":"51 - 67"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordicom Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2020-0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

Abstract For years, social media platforms have been perceived as a democratic gain, facilitating freedom of expression, easy access to a variety of information, and new means of public participation. At the same time, social media have enabled the dissemination of illegal content and incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, fuelling several content regulation initiatives. From the perspective of freedom of expression, this development embraces two challenges: first, private actors govern freedom of expression, without human rights safeguards; second, this privatised governance of human rights is encouraged and legitimised by a broad range of EU policy initiatives. Informed by an analysis of Danish Facebook users’ attitudes toward public debate on Facebook, we pose the question: How do social media companies such as Facebook balance various human rights considerations on their platforms, particularly in relation to freedom of expression? We analyse the abovementioned challenges through a human rights lens, which serves as the analytical framework for this article. Further, we suggest some strategies for moving forward, drawing on recent recommendations from the UN human rights system.
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
社交媒体平台言论自由的私人治理:从人权标准的角度看欧盟的内容监管
多年来,社交媒体平台一直被视为民主的收获,促进了言论自由,方便了获取各种信息,以及公众参与的新手段。与此同时,社交媒体助长了非法内容的传播,煽动歧视、敌意或暴力,推动了一些内容监管举措。从言论自由的角度来看,这一发展包含两个挑战:首先,私人行为者在没有人权保障的情况下支配言论自由;其次,这种私有化的人权治理得到了广泛的欧盟政策举措的鼓励和合法化。通过对丹麦Facebook用户对Facebook上公开辩论的态度的分析,我们提出了一个问题:Facebook等社交媒体公司如何在其平台上平衡各种人权考虑,特别是与言论自由有关的问题?我们从人权的角度分析上述挑战,并以此作为本文的分析框架。此外,我们根据联合国人权系统最近提出的建议,提出了一些向前推进的战略。
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
Nordicom Review
Nordicom Review COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
10
审稿时长
52 weeks
期刊最新文献
The changing role of a video-on-demand service in the strategies of public service media: A production study of Danish TV 2 Play and its impact on the production culture of the schedulers, 2016–2022 The reappropriation of time in television: How traditional qualities of broadcast media are being adopted by their video-on-demand services Politicians’ social media usage in a hybrid media environment: A scoping review of the literature between 2008–2022 Authoritarianism in the discourse of online forums: A study of its articulations in the Swedish context Post-publication gatekeeping practices: Exploring conversational and visual gatekeeping on Finnish newspapers’ Instagram accounts
×
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