Pub Date : 2021-04-19DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2021.1918905
B. Townsend
ABSTRACT Personal information, in particular health-related information, used in conjunction with data analytics and shared with researchers, is a valuable tool in health research and development. In light of the public health emergency arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and new African data protection laws, this paper addresses the regulation of data sharing and transfer. Three broad questions addressed are: (i) What are the existing legal modalities governing and protecting data use and sharing in South Africa, and, more generally, in Africa? How can data be transferred into and out of South Africa? (ii) What can be learned from recent international developments in data transfer? And, lastly, (iii) where plausible how might data flows throughout Africa be facilitated in the interests of public health during times of pandemic? This paper explores these questions with specific emphasis on the importance of health and research data transfers in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
{"title":"The lawful sharing of health research data in South Africa and beyond","authors":"B. Townsend","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2021.1918905","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2021.1918905","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Personal information, in particular health-related information, used in conjunction with data analytics and shared with researchers, is a valuable tool in health research and development. In light of the public health emergency arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and new African data protection laws, this paper addresses the regulation of data sharing and transfer. Three broad questions addressed are: (i) What are the existing legal modalities governing and protecting data use and sharing in South Africa, and, more generally, in Africa? How can data be transferred into and out of South Africa? (ii) What can be learned from recent international developments in data transfer? And, lastly, (iii) where plausible how might data flows throughout Africa be facilitated in the interests of public health during times of pandemic? This paper explores these questions with specific emphasis on the importance of health and research data transfers in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"31 1","pages":"17 - 34"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13600834.2021.1918905","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46225272","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-26DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2021.1892019
Christy Huff
ABSTRACT What are a re-registrant's rights to an Internet domain name under the US Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act? Circuit courts of appeals have split on the question of whether to view Internet domain name re-registrations as intangible property (Ninth Circuit) or under a contract framework (Third and Eleventh Circuits). But it turns out that both of these views fall short. The property approach could encourage cybersquatting, contravening the ACPA’s statutory purpose, and the contract approach can be over-inclusive, potentially subjecting to liability a domain name registrant who is merely changing her address, her payment information, or even correcting a misspelling. Where the two approaches lead to divergent outcomes, a hybrid approach is not feasible. I suggest that recognizing the de facto licensing system already used in domain name registration (and re-registration) (1) resolves the circuit split, (2) more accurately describes the process of acquiring and maintaining one's rights in a domain name registration, and (3) enables consistent application of the ACPA.
{"title":"License and registration: how both property and contract legal frameworks fall short on interpreting domain name registration under the US Anticybersquatting Act","authors":"Christy Huff","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2021.1892019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2021.1892019","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT What are a re-registrant's rights to an Internet domain name under the US Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act? Circuit courts of appeals have split on the question of whether to view Internet domain name re-registrations as intangible property (Ninth Circuit) or under a contract framework (Third and Eleventh Circuits). But it turns out that both of these views fall short. The property approach could encourage cybersquatting, contravening the ACPA’s statutory purpose, and the contract approach can be over-inclusive, potentially subjecting to liability a domain name registrant who is merely changing her address, her payment information, or even correcting a misspelling. Where the two approaches lead to divergent outcomes, a hybrid approach is not feasible. I suggest that recognizing the de facto licensing system already used in domain name registration (and re-registration) (1) resolves the circuit split, (2) more accurately describes the process of acquiring and maintaining one's rights in a domain name registration, and (3) enables consistent application of the ACPA.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"30 1","pages":"363 - 379"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13600834.2021.1892019","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47147702","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-23DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2021.1889759
L. Efimova, O. Sizemova, A. Chirkov
ABSTRACT This paper aims to show that computer software known as ‘smart contract' can help achieve various goals. First, the software can be used as a means of executing a traditional contract. Second, smart contracts may help enforce the law. Third, the software can act as a means of concluding and executing a contract. In this case, a smart contract can replace a written one. Consequently, the entire contractual practice moves into cyberspace, and we observe total ‘dematerialisation' of contractual relations. Fourth, a smart contract can be used to enforce a court decision. Since the paper focuses on the contractual aspect of this technological innovation, the authors believe that a smart contract should be understood as a computer program serving as an external form for any type of contract. Such a contract can only be blockchain-based, because the blockchain technology ensures commencement, automatic execution, and termination of civil obligations in cyberspace. Based on the authors’ concept of a smart contract, this paper offers recommendations to eliminate legal and operational risks that arise when users of digital financial services conclude and execute smart contracts. The paper suggests ways to improve customer supervision of activities performed by operators and administrators of operating platforms.
{"title":"Smart contracts: between freedom and strict legal regulation","authors":"L. Efimova, O. Sizemova, A. Chirkov","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2021.1889759","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2021.1889759","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper aims to show that computer software known as ‘smart contract' can help achieve various goals. First, the software can be used as a means of executing a traditional contract. Second, smart contracts may help enforce the law. Third, the software can act as a means of concluding and executing a contract. In this case, a smart contract can replace a written one. Consequently, the entire contractual practice moves into cyberspace, and we observe total ‘dematerialisation' of contractual relations. Fourth, a smart contract can be used to enforce a court decision. Since the paper focuses on the contractual aspect of this technological innovation, the authors believe that a smart contract should be understood as a computer program serving as an external form for any type of contract. Such a contract can only be blockchain-based, because the blockchain technology ensures commencement, automatic execution, and termination of civil obligations in cyberspace. Based on the authors’ concept of a smart contract, this paper offers recommendations to eliminate legal and operational risks that arise when users of digital financial services conclude and execute smart contracts. The paper suggests ways to improve customer supervision of activities performed by operators and administrators of operating platforms.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"30 1","pages":"333 - 353"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13600834.2021.1889759","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47527636","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-22DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2021.1890678
Zhao Yan Lee, M. Karim, Kevin Ngui
ABSTRACT Artificial Intelligence technology has rapidly advanced in this era. Many of the AI appliances nowadays have been infused with abilities to self-develop their knowledge and self-enhance their operational precision through machine learning. The emergence of deep learning technology, a sub-set of machine learning, which observes AI mimicking after the way a human brain functions, presents an even more revolutionary step towards perfecting AI’s accuracy, precision and efficiency. Similar to a human brain, the cognitive process of the deep learning AI, through its artificial neurons, is not decipherable. This presents a fundamental legal / constitutional problem for most jurisdictions across the world, where any errors or mistakes made by the concerned AI algorithm, are attributable to none other than itself. This research identifies major issues in relation to the application of the law of causation in an AI’s case, in effort to propose solutions in this dilemma of justice.
{"title":"Deep learning artificial intelligence and the law of causation: application, challenges and solutions","authors":"Zhao Yan Lee, M. Karim, Kevin Ngui","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2021.1890678","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2021.1890678","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Artificial Intelligence technology has rapidly advanced in this era. Many of the AI appliances nowadays have been infused with abilities to self-develop their knowledge and self-enhance their operational precision through machine learning. The emergence of deep learning technology, a sub-set of machine learning, which observes AI mimicking after the way a human brain functions, presents an even more revolutionary step towards perfecting AI’s accuracy, precision and efficiency. Similar to a human brain, the cognitive process of the deep learning AI, through its artificial neurons, is not decipherable. This presents a fundamental legal / constitutional problem for most jurisdictions across the world, where any errors or mistakes made by the concerned AI algorithm, are attributable to none other than itself. This research identifies major issues in relation to the application of the law of causation in an AI’s case, in effort to propose solutions in this dilemma of justice.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"30 1","pages":"255 - 282"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13600834.2021.1890678","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46483061","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-05DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2021.1875539
Constantina Sampani
ABSTRACT The rigorous deliberations of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law to create a global regulatory framework for Online Dispute Resolution have failed to generate a consensus. This paper analyses whether UNCITRAL’s ambition to develop an inclusive ODR regulatory platform has considered the complexities of cutting across cultural boundaries and power (im)balances. The objective here is to challenge UNCITRAL’s assumption that technology’s a-territorial nature facilitates homogeneity in ODR. To this end, the paper examines the implications of globalisation and the evolution of diverse cultures on ODR and proposes that an alternative approach is needed to combine cosmopolitan and legal pluralism in developing a platform trusted by all disputing parties. The author argues that the focus of contemporary research should extend to consider commonalities across and between national, regional and global levels of governance when regulating for ODR. The paper’s findings will inform policy makers and regulators, including UNCITRAL, when considering the role and interaction of various stakeholders when developing an ODR framework. The significance of this article lies in bringing out that the creation of a regulatory ODR framework needs to be more finely nuanced due to its nature as a normative and legal hybrid.
{"title":"Online dispute resolution in e-commerce: is consensus in regulation UNCITRAL’s utopian idea or a realistic ambition?","authors":"Constantina Sampani","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2021.1875539","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2021.1875539","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The rigorous deliberations of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law to create a global regulatory framework for Online Dispute Resolution have failed to generate a consensus. This paper analyses whether UNCITRAL’s ambition to develop an inclusive ODR regulatory platform has considered the complexities of cutting across cultural boundaries and power (im)balances. The objective here is to challenge UNCITRAL’s assumption that technology’s a-territorial nature facilitates homogeneity in ODR. To this end, the paper examines the implications of globalisation and the evolution of diverse cultures on ODR and proposes that an alternative approach is needed to combine cosmopolitan and legal pluralism in developing a platform trusted by all disputing parties. The author argues that the focus of contemporary research should extend to consider commonalities across and between national, regional and global levels of governance when regulating for ODR. The paper’s findings will inform policy makers and regulators, including UNCITRAL, when considering the role and interaction of various stakeholders when developing an ODR framework. The significance of this article lies in bringing out that the creation of a regulatory ODR framework needs to be more finely nuanced due to its nature as a normative and legal hybrid.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"30 1","pages":"235 - 254"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13600834.2021.1875539","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47708350","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-31DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2021.1905593
Greyson K. Young
ABSTRACT Recent events, including the 2020 Presidential Election and the Insurrection of the U.S. Capitol, have shown us that social media can be used for darker purposes. Hate speech, fake news, and content inciting violence have become the unfortunate norm when scrolling through one’s newsfeed. Platforms have had to face the issue of dealing with objectionable content such as this. Should they leave it there? Should they get rid of it? How do they differentiate between what’s acceptable and what’s not? Are these decisions made consistently and accurately? The bigger questions have become whether social media platforms are removing enough material or removing too much. This Article address the two major methods that social media platforms have used to moderate objectionable content, including the many flaws associated with each. External legal factors including Section 230 and FOSTA-SESTA are discussed as potential motivators for the evolving social media moderating techniques. Additionally, this Article discusses the strengthening hold that app markets such as Apple, Amazon, and Google have over social media platforms and how these relationships directly influence how platforms police content. Finally, alternative methods of moderation are proposed and discussed in relation to the current moderating norms.
{"title":"How much is too much: the difficulties of social media content moderation","authors":"Greyson K. Young","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2021.1905593","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2021.1905593","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Recent events, including the 2020 Presidential Election and the Insurrection of the U.S. Capitol, have shown us that social media can be used for darker purposes. Hate speech, fake news, and content inciting violence have become the unfortunate norm when scrolling through one’s newsfeed. Platforms have had to face the issue of dealing with objectionable content such as this. Should they leave it there? Should they get rid of it? How do they differentiate between what’s acceptable and what’s not? Are these decisions made consistently and accurately? The bigger questions have become whether social media platforms are removing enough material or removing too much. This Article address the two major methods that social media platforms have used to moderate objectionable content, including the many flaws associated with each. External legal factors including Section 230 and FOSTA-SESTA are discussed as potential motivators for the evolving social media moderating techniques. Additionally, this Article discusses the strengthening hold that app markets such as Apple, Amazon, and Google have over social media platforms and how these relationships directly influence how platforms police content. Finally, alternative methods of moderation are proposed and discussed in relation to the current moderating norms.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"31 1","pages":"1 - 16"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13600834.2021.1905593","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41933895","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-20DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2021.1876331
B. van der Sloot, Sascha van Schendel
ABSTRACT Large-scale data applications are becoming an increasingly integral part of how both public and private sector organisations function. The transition towards a data-driven society means that processes within organisations will be organised structurally differently than they used to be and that decision-making will be based on profiles and algorithms more often than not. This change requires several adjustments to the legal regime, both to make the best possible use of the opportunities this change has to offer and to lay down safeguards against dangers and risks. To facilitate this process, a number of changes is needed to the current, individual-centred legal paradigm, such as laying down a protective regime for non-personal data, providing protection to public interests and societal harms and granting a bigger role for representative and collective actions and public interest litigation.
{"title":"Procedural law for the data-driven society","authors":"B. van der Sloot, Sascha van Schendel","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2021.1876331","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2021.1876331","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Large-scale data applications are becoming an increasingly integral part of how both public and private sector organisations function. The transition towards a data-driven society means that processes within organisations will be organised structurally differently than they used to be and that decision-making will be based on profiles and algorithms more often than not. This change requires several adjustments to the legal regime, both to make the best possible use of the opportunities this change has to offer and to lay down safeguards against dangers and risks. To facilitate this process, a number of changes is needed to the current, individual-centred legal paradigm, such as laying down a protective regime for non-personal data, providing protection to public interests and societal harms and granting a bigger role for representative and collective actions and public interest litigation.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"30 1","pages":"304 - 332"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13600834.2021.1876331","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42182759","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-11DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2020.1857789
Pattamon Anansaringkarn, Ric Neo
ABSTRACT The fake news crisis has raised questions about the role of state regulation in curbing misinformation, as well as the responsibilities tech companies should shoulder. In engaging with debates on digital governance, this article has two key focuses: first, what are the problems associated with the lack of state regulations in the digital sphere – where technology companies have unprecedented control over online public discourses? Next, how can states ensure that online regulations are measured, and continue to respect important liberties? This essay argues that the lack of regulation over tech firms has led to arbitrary censorship, conflict of interest issues and a legitimacy gap, with adverse societal consequences. Next, through a case study of contemporary fake news responses advanced by the Thai government, it empirically examines concerns associated with state-led initiatives to regulate misinformation on social media. Overall, while advocating for increased regulation over the online sphere, this article argues that regulations which equate the concept of fake news to illegality are not optimal as they are likely to undercut societal liberties. Implementing robust transparency mechanisms over tech companies represents a valuable first step that should be undertaken before further attempts to advance coercive legislation establishing the state as the sole arbiter of truth are made.
{"title":"How can state regulations over the online sphere continue to respect the freedom of expression? A case study of contemporary ‘fake news’ regulations in Thailand","authors":"Pattamon Anansaringkarn, Ric Neo","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2020.1857789","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2020.1857789","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The fake news crisis has raised questions about the role of state regulation in curbing misinformation, as well as the responsibilities tech companies should shoulder. In engaging with debates on digital governance, this article has two key focuses: first, what are the problems associated with the lack of state regulations in the digital sphere – where technology companies have unprecedented control over online public discourses? Next, how can states ensure that online regulations are measured, and continue to respect important liberties? This essay argues that the lack of regulation over tech firms has led to arbitrary censorship, conflict of interest issues and a legitimacy gap, with adverse societal consequences. Next, through a case study of contemporary fake news responses advanced by the Thai government, it empirically examines concerns associated with state-led initiatives to regulate misinformation on social media. Overall, while advocating for increased regulation over the online sphere, this article argues that regulations which equate the concept of fake news to illegality are not optimal as they are likely to undercut societal liberties. Implementing robust transparency mechanisms over tech companies represents a valuable first step that should be undertaken before further attempts to advance coercive legislation establishing the state as the sole arbiter of truth are made.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"30 1","pages":"283 - 303"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13600834.2020.1857789","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49465053","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2020.1807118
L. Collingwood
ABSTRACT Smart toys, because they collect and have the facility to share data, have been viewed as surveillance devices, being banned in some countries and cast as villains. But who are they spying for? Could we imagine a smart toy that is programmed to pick up concerns raised by the child about their treatment by parents or guardian and alert the authorities? Could they be used to positive effect, therefore? It will be argued that this is a complex and contested area and there are clear contradictions in law, particularly concerning the protection of a child’s right to privacy versus parental expectations. This article therefore challenges some of the narratives around this area. The article will also ask whether the smart toy offers an opportunity to recast the notion of a child’s right to privacy in a way that balances children’s autonomy rights with their protection rights. It is often the unintended use of technology that shifts its purpose from villain to guardian and back again, and the smart toy may be another example of this.
{"title":"Villain or guardian? ‘The smart toy is watching you now … .’","authors":"L. Collingwood","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2020.1807118","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2020.1807118","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Smart toys, because they collect and have the facility to share data, have been viewed as surveillance devices, being banned in some countries and cast as villains. But who are they spying for? Could we imagine a smart toy that is programmed to pick up concerns raised by the child about their treatment by parents or guardian and alert the authorities? Could they be used to positive effect, therefore? It will be argued that this is a complex and contested area and there are clear contradictions in law, particularly concerning the protection of a child’s right to privacy versus parental expectations. This article therefore challenges some of the narratives around this area. The article will also ask whether the smart toy offers an opportunity to recast the notion of a child’s right to privacy in a way that balances children’s autonomy rights with their protection rights. It is often the unintended use of technology that shifts its purpose from villain to guardian and back again, and the smart toy may be another example of this.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"30 1","pages":"75 - 86"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13600834.2020.1807118","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47802434","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2020.1807136
R. Willis
ABSTRACT This study uses nearly one million Tweets from eight campaigns targeting seven countries to explore the relationship between social media and domestic legal change, specifically in the area of women’s rights. The research is underpinned by a critique of the spiral model of human rights change and second wave normative scholarship. The study focuses on quantifying contextual, independent (online behaviours), and dependent (legal change) variables in order to model the effectiveness of the campaigns. Using the space of social media presents a wide range of opportunities as well as threats. It may be that these campaigns are indeed leading to the change sought after by domestic women and girls, and that, as many posit, the weight of the international attention leads to positive outcomes. Equally, it may be that the campaigns are ineffective or, worse, lead to harmful government backlashes. This research seeks to understand these outcomes in depth, using empirical data to model the effectiveness of campaigns. This article in particular focusses on the methodological challenges and solutions with this kind of large-scale comparative social media research.
{"title":"Exploring the relationship between global Twitter campaigns and domestic law: methodological challenges and solutions","authors":"R. Willis","doi":"10.1080/13600834.2020.1807136","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2020.1807136","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study uses nearly one million Tweets from eight campaigns targeting seven countries to explore the relationship between social media and domestic legal change, specifically in the area of women’s rights. The research is underpinned by a critique of the spiral model of human rights change and second wave normative scholarship. The study focuses on quantifying contextual, independent (online behaviours), and dependent (legal change) variables in order to model the effectiveness of the campaigns. Using the space of social media presents a wide range of opportunities as well as threats. It may be that these campaigns are indeed leading to the change sought after by domestic women and girls, and that, as many posit, the weight of the international attention leads to positive outcomes. Equally, it may be that the campaigns are ineffective or, worse, lead to harmful government backlashes. This research seeks to understand these outcomes in depth, using empirical data to model the effectiveness of campaigns. This article in particular focusses on the methodological challenges and solutions with this kind of large-scale comparative social media research.","PeriodicalId":44342,"journal":{"name":"Information & Communications Technology Law","volume":"30 1","pages":"3 - 16"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13600834.2020.1807136","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47758396","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：