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.
{"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":"https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.348","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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135859748","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As Yochai Benkler identified almost two decades ago, the internet radically transformed “how we make the information environment we occupy as autonomous individuals, citizens and members of cultural and social groups” (Benkler, 2006, p. 1). This transformation has had critical implications for democratic social and political systems. Our information environment plays an important role in the “health” of a democracy because democratic governance is about more than casting and counting votes—it also involves socially and culturally informed preference formation (Bracha, 2006, p. 1845). According to cultural theory, democratic governance is supported by a culture in which all individuals have the opportunity to participate in social processes of meaning-making and access to diverse viewpoints (see, e.g., Balkin, 2015). In deliberative or participatory democracies, as they are sometimes termed (Pateman, 2012), informed citizens contend with a range of ideas and contribute to important public debates. In both theory and practice, the internet provides near-limitless opportunities for public debate, political deliberation, and participation in social processes of meaning-making. But has an increase in opportunities for cultural participation led to what Benkler and others identified as the “great promise” of the internet, that is, more freedom for democratic participation and human development? The evidence is mixed. With the uptake of social media platforms by billions of people, more than ever before, we are free to share our ideas with each other. Yet, there is also clear evidence that the internet and platform capitalism produces a range of harms to individuals and democratic governance. In previous issues of Policy & Internet, contributors to the journal have studied the problems of democracy in the internet era across a range of context and topics from misinformation to monopoly power, surveillance capitalism, authoritarianism, journalism, information warfare and, of course, the capacity of democratically elected lawmakers to respond with new policy in a timely and effective manner. From these contributions and others, we know that the democratic political process is directly undermined when political actors and foreign governments manipulate and, in some cases, weaponize the flow of information online to influence the outcome of elections (North et al., 2021; Yoon et al., 2022). We have also seen how the spread of misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories, the amplification of partisan voices, and the targeting of marginalized demographics weaken social cohesion by exacerbating societal divisions and eroding the trust that people have in one another, democratic institutions, and elections (Dobreva et al., 2020; Gruzd & Roy, 2014; Karlsson et al., 2021; Lee, 2020; Mena, 2020; Ng & Taeihagh, 2021). Authoritarianism, populism, and fascism in some corners of contemporary politics may also work to destabilization of democratic systems o
{"title":"Democracy in the digital era","authors":"Joanne Gray, Jonathon Hutchinson, Milica Stilinovic","doi":"10.1002/poi3.349","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.349","url":null,"abstract":"As Yochai Benkler identified almost two decades ago, the internet radically transformed “how we make the information environment we occupy as autonomous individuals, citizens and members of cultural and social groups” (Benkler, 2006, p. 1). This transformation has had critical implications for democratic social and political systems. Our information environment plays an important role in the “health” of a democracy because democratic governance is about more than casting and counting votes—it also involves socially and culturally informed preference formation (Bracha, 2006, p. 1845). According to cultural theory, democratic governance is supported by a culture in which all individuals have the opportunity to participate in social processes of meaning-making and access to diverse viewpoints (see, e.g., Balkin, 2015). In deliberative or participatory democracies, as they are sometimes termed (Pateman, 2012), informed citizens contend with a range of ideas and contribute to important public debates. In both theory and practice, the internet provides near-limitless opportunities for public debate, political deliberation, and participation in social processes of meaning-making. But has an increase in opportunities for cultural participation led to what Benkler and others identified as the “great promise” of the internet, that is, more freedom for democratic participation and human development? The evidence is mixed. With the uptake of social media platforms by billions of people, more than ever before, we are free to share our ideas with each other. Yet, there is also clear evidence that the internet and platform capitalism produces a range of harms to individuals and democratic governance. In previous issues of Policy & Internet, contributors to the journal have studied the problems of democracy in the internet era across a range of context and topics from misinformation to monopoly power, surveillance capitalism, authoritarianism, journalism, information warfare and, of course, the capacity of democratically elected lawmakers to respond with new policy in a timely and effective manner. From these contributions and others, we know that the democratic political process is directly undermined when political actors and foreign governments manipulate and, in some cases, weaponize the flow of information online to influence the outcome of elections (North et al., 2021; Yoon et al., 2022). We have also seen how the spread of misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories, the amplification of partisan voices, and the targeting of marginalized demographics weaken social cohesion by exacerbating societal divisions and eroding the trust that people have in one another, democratic institutions, and elections (Dobreva et al., 2020; Gruzd & Roy, 2014; Karlsson et al., 2021; Lee, 2020; Mena, 2020; Ng & Taeihagh, 2021). Authoritarianism, populism, and fascism in some corners of contemporary politics may also work to destabilization of democratic systems o","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135792823","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The Internet of Things (IoT) has potential to deliver important benefits for IoT users, society and public good. How do citizens feel about sharing data from personal devices compared with “smart city” data collection in public spaces, with government and nongovernmental organizations, and across different situations? What predicts willingness to share their data with government? Through a nationally representative survey of over 2000 US respondents as well as interviews, we explore the willingness of citizens to share their data in various circumstances, using the contextual integrity framework, the literature on the “publicness” of organizations, and public value creation. Across different contexts, from half to 2/3 of survey respondents were willing to share data from their own IoT devices for public benefits, and 80%−93% supported the use of sensors in public places for a variety of collective purposes. Trust in government was significantly related to data sharing and support for smart city data collection. Yet government in the United States is less trusted with this data than other organizations with public purposes, such as nonprofits. Cultivating trust through transparent and responsible data stewardship will be important for future use of IoT data for public good.
{"title":"The public good and public attitudes toward data sharing through IoT","authors":"Karen Mossberger, Seongkyung Cho, Pauline Hope Cheong, Daria Kuznetsova","doi":"10.1002/poi3.343","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.343","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Internet of Things (IoT) has potential to deliver important benefits for IoT users, society and public good. How do citizens feel about sharing data from personal devices compared with “smart city” data collection in public spaces, with government and nongovernmental organizations, and across different situations? What predicts willingness to share their data with government? Through a nationally representative survey of over 2000 US respondents as well as interviews, we explore the willingness of citizens to share their data in various circumstances, using the contextual integrity framework, the literature on the “publicness” of organizations, and public value creation. Across different contexts, from half to 2/3 of survey respondents were willing to share data from their own IoT devices for public benefits, and 80%−93% supported the use of sensors in public places for a variety of collective purposes. Trust in government was significantly related to data sharing and support for smart city data collection. Yet government in the United States is less trusted with this data than other organizations with public purposes, such as nonprofits. Cultivating trust through transparent and responsible data stewardship will be important for future use of IoT data for public good.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135189349","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Noting the infrastructural turn in platform studies, the article conceives China's health code system, Jian Kang Ma (JKM), deployed to manage the COVID‐19 crisis as a new social infrastructure that manifests the symbolic and material power of the Party State. Using the platform walkthrough method and documentary inquiry, we unpack the structures of platform governance and identify actors of the power to appreciate the socio‐political dynamics of platform algorithms. JKM's structural power is not monolithic in the name of the Party State but supports a process of structuration that operates across multiple actors, administrative bodies and, governing layers. JKM has centralised data systems through the building of a nationwide algorithmic standard of COVID‐19 governance. JKM typified the political dynamics of deterritorialisation, a reference to the state's governing mindset of eradicating local variants of policy implementation and governing autonomy in China. The removal of local power in pandemic administration has led to the production of a unified national subject. Such a comprehensive approach begs for greater nuance and sophisticated knowledge about those indigenous logics that platforms and algorithms operate and are embedded in, thus contributing to de‐westernising platform studies.
{"title":"Governing with health code: Standardising China's data network systems during COVID‐19","authors":"Yu Sun, W. Wang","doi":"10.1002/poi3.292","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.292","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Noting the infrastructural turn in platform studies, the article conceives China's health code system, Jian Kang Ma (JKM), deployed to manage the COVID‐19 crisis as a new social infrastructure that manifests the symbolic and material power of the Party State. Using the platform walkthrough method and documentary inquiry, we unpack the structures of platform governance and identify actors of the power to appreciate the socio‐political dynamics of platform algorithms. JKM's structural power is not monolithic in the name of the Party State but supports a process of structuration that operates across multiple actors, administrative bodies and, governing layers. JKM has centralised data systems through the building of a nationwide algorithmic standard of COVID‐19 governance. JKM typified the political dynamics of deterritorialisation, a reference to the state's governing mindset of eradicating local variants of policy implementation and governing autonomy in China. The removal of local power in pandemic administration has led to the production of a unified national subject. Such a comprehensive approach begs for greater nuance and sophisticated knowledge about those indigenous logics that platforms and algorithms operate and are embedded in, thus contributing to de‐westernising platform studies.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2022-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48635329","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jessica Pugel, Elizabeth C Long, Mary Fernandes, Katherine Cruz, Cagla Giray, D Max Crowley, Taylor Scott
The evolving science around COVID-19 made timely digital communication with policymakers increasingly important for all constituencies. This holds true particularly for the scientific community, where evidence-informed policymaking can influence the effectiveness of public responses. In this context, understanding how to reach policymakers effectively and which policymakers are likely to engage with scientific information delivered through digital mediums is critical. This study provides a novel observational approach to understanding reach with policymakers through science email campaigns. Using a sample of nearly 3000 state policymakers, we assessed data from five digital messaging campaigns. Results indicate four profiles of legislators: those who rarely open and open slowly (Never Openers), those who only opened a couple of emails (Rare Openers), those who open quickly, but do not always open (Intermittent Openers), and those that consistently open quickly (Always Openers). Female legislators and legislators who had served for fewer terms were more likely to be Always Openers or Intermittent Openers, relative to male legislators and legislators who had served more terms. This study reveals patterns of email engagement and indicates science communication efforts may need to adopt more targeted strategies that better reach policymakers who tend to engage less frequently with emailed research content.
{"title":"Who is listening? Profiles of policymaker engagement with scientific communication.","authors":"Jessica Pugel, Elizabeth C Long, Mary Fernandes, Katherine Cruz, Cagla Giray, D Max Crowley, Taylor Scott","doi":"10.1002/poi3.273","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.273","url":null,"abstract":"The evolving science around COVID-19 made timely digital communication with policymakers increasingly important for all constituencies. This holds true particularly for the scientific community, where evidence-informed policymaking can influence the effectiveness of public responses. In this context, understanding how to reach policymakers effectively and which policymakers are likely to engage with scientific information delivered through digital mediums is critical. This study provides a novel observational approach to understanding reach with policymakers through science email campaigns. Using a sample of nearly 3000 state policymakers, we assessed data from five digital messaging campaigns. Results indicate four profiles of legislators: those who rarely open and open slowly (Never Openers), those who only opened a couple of emails (Rare Openers), those who open quickly, but do not always open (Intermittent Openers), and those that consistently open quickly (Always Openers). Female legislators and legislators who had served for fewer terms were more likely to be Always Openers or Intermittent Openers, relative to male legislators and legislators who had served more terms. This study reveals patterns of email engagement and indicates science communication efforts may need to adopt more targeted strategies that better reach policymakers who tend to engage less frequently with emailed research content.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9216211/pdf/nihms-1748872.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10814264","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"From content moderation to\u0000 visibility moderation\u0000 : A case study of platform governance on TikTok","authors":"Jing Zeng, D. Kaye","doi":"10.1002/poi3.287","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.287","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2022-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43889582","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Consumer IoT and its under‐regulation: Findings from an Australian study","authors":"Diarmaid Harkin, Monique Mann, I. Warren","doi":"10.1002/poi3.285","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.285","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2022-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49497728","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A core aspect of agile governance is effectively managing communications between a government and its citizens. However, doing so during an emergency?particularly a pandemic?is often complex and challenging. In this article, we examine how various levels of the Chinese government (central, provincial, and municipal) communicated with the public in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Analyzing government social media posts during the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan (?text as data?), we conduct topic modeling analysis and identify four strategies that characterize Chinese governments? responses to a variety of issues at the ground level, which we label instructing information, adjusting information, advocacy, and bolstering. The results show that local government agencies predominantly used the first two strategies, whereas the central government mainly relied on the last two. These strategies explain how various levels of government engaged in agile governance through their communication with citizens, highlight the coordination and control work undertaken by governments at all levels, and demonstrate how these methods shielded the central government from blame for the pandemic.
{"title":"Unpacking government social media messaging strategies during the COVID‐19 pandemic in China","authors":"Yiran Li, Y. Chandra, Yingying Fan","doi":"10.1002/poi3.282","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.282","url":null,"abstract":"A core aspect of agile governance is effectively managing communications between a government and its citizens. However, doing so during an emergency?particularly a pandemic?is often complex and challenging. In this article, we examine how various levels of the Chinese government (central, provincial, and municipal) communicated with the public in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Analyzing government social media posts during the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan (?text as data?), we conduct topic modeling analysis and identify four strategies that characterize Chinese governments? responses to a variety of issues at the ground level, which we label instructing information, adjusting information, advocacy, and bolstering. The results show that local government agencies predominantly used the first two strategies, whereas the central government mainly relied on the last two. These strategies explain how various levels of government engaged in agile governance through their communication with citizens, highlight the coordination and control work undertaken by governments at all levels, and demonstrate how these methods shielded the central government from blame for the pandemic.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2021-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46492695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Open Government Data (OGD) has been framed as a collection of tools enabling the achievement of diverse goals: to increase transparency and thus improve democracy, to boost economic development, and to enhance the ef fi ciency of public services. To investigate the evolution of OGD, this study focuses on the work of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). To identify the underlying values and multiple purposes of OGD, we propose a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) study, which aims to show how OGD has been forged and how the expectations towards it have evolved. This paper aims to contribute to the existing literature, offering a critical perspective of the OECD's work on OGD, as well as developing a more nuanced understanding of OGD's conceptual features. Finally, the study reveals the emergence of a data ‐ driven government model, paving the way for further research on its effects on Public Administration and Public Law.
{"title":"Open Government Data: The OECD's Swiss army knife in the transformation of government","authors":"Clarissa Valli Buttow, S. Weerts","doi":"10.1002/poi3.275","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.275","url":null,"abstract":"Open Government Data (OGD) has been framed as a collection of tools enabling the achievement of diverse goals: to increase transparency and thus improve democracy, to boost economic development, and to enhance the ef fi ciency of public services. To investigate the evolution of OGD, this study focuses on the work of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). To identify the underlying values and multiple purposes of OGD, we propose a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) study, which aims to show how OGD has been forged and how the expectations towards it have evolved. This paper aims to contribute to the existing literature, offering a critical perspective of the OECD's work on OGD, as well as developing a more nuanced understanding of OGD's conceptual features. Finally, the study reveals the emergence of a data ‐ driven government model, paving the way for further research on its effects on Public Administration and Public Law.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2021-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43794896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We analyze public points of interconnection of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple (GAFA) in the global North versus the global South to determine the degree to which their location preferences differ, if at all. We fi nd that there is a statistically signi fi cant difference in GAFA locating in the global North versus the global South — a difference based on a country's wealth, speci fi cally as given by per capita GNI. Approximately 38% of countries classi fi ed as global North have a GAFA public point of interconnection, while 16% of those classi fi ed as global South do. Apple has approximately 92% of its presence in the global North, followed by Amazon (82.5%), Facebook (73%), and Google (72%). Our fi ndings suggest that competition and antitrust policy discussions of digital platforms should include information on the dynamics of interconnection infrastructure distribution, and for that, such information must be available. We also assert that a global consideration of the digital platforms market is necessary.
{"title":"GAFA's information infrastructure distribution: Interconnection dynamics in the global North versus global South","authors":"Fernanda R. Rosa, J. Hauge","doi":"10.1002/poi3.278","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.278","url":null,"abstract":"We analyze public points of interconnection of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple (GAFA) in the global North versus the global South to determine the degree to which their location preferences differ, if at all. We fi nd that there is a statistically signi fi cant difference in GAFA locating in the global North versus the global South — a difference based on a country's wealth, speci fi cally as given by per capita GNI. Approximately 38% of countries classi fi ed as global North have a GAFA public point of interconnection, while 16% of those classi fi ed as global South do. Apple has approximately 92% of its presence in the global North, followed by Amazon (82.5%), Facebook (73%), and Google (72%). Our fi ndings suggest that competition and antitrust policy discussions of digital platforms should include information on the dynamics of interconnection infrastructure distribution, and for that, such information must be available. We also assert that a global consideration of the digital platforms market is necessary.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2021-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48475888","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","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：