{"title":"Followers Retweet! The Influence of Middle‐Level Gatekeepers on the Spread of Political Information on Twitter","authors":"Jeff J. Hemsley","doi":"10.1002/POI3.202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.202","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.202","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47708718","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":"Does Aid for Information and Communications Technology Help Reduce the Global Digital Divide?","authors":"S. Gnangnon","doi":"10.1002/POI3.220","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.220","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2019-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.220","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48364765","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":"Contextual Integrity and its Discontents: A Critique of Helen Nissenbaum's Normative Arguments","authors":"J. Rule","doi":"10.1002/POI3.215","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.215","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2019-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.215","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42242158","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}
K. Frenken, A. V. Waes, P. Pelzer, M. Smink, R. Est
This article examines the main public interests at stake with the rise of online platforms in the sharing economy and the gig economy. We do so by analyzing platforms in five sectors in the Netherlands: domestic cleaning (Helpling), taxi rides (UberPop), home restaurants (AirDnD), home sharing (Airbnb), and car sharing (SnappCar). The most salient public interests are a level playing field between platforms and industry incumbents, tax compliance, consumer protection, labor protection, and privacy protection. We develop four policy options (enforce, new regulation, deregulation, and toleration), and discuss the rationales for each option in safeguarding each public interest. We further stress that arguments supporting a particular policy option should take into account the sectoral context. We finally highlight the tension between the subsidiarity principle, which would call for local regulations as platforms mostly concern local transactions and innovation policies that aim to support innovation and a single digital market.
{"title":"Safeguarding Public Interests in the Platform Economy","authors":"K. Frenken, A. V. Waes, P. Pelzer, M. Smink, R. Est","doi":"10.1002/POI3.217","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.217","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the main public interests at stake with the rise of online platforms in the sharing economy and the gig economy. We do so by analyzing platforms in five sectors in the Netherlands: domestic cleaning (Helpling), taxi rides (UberPop), home restaurants (AirDnD), home sharing (Airbnb), and car sharing (SnappCar). The most salient public interests are a level playing field between platforms and industry incumbents, tax compliance, consumer protection, labor protection, and privacy protection. We develop four policy options (enforce, new regulation, deregulation, and toleration), and discuss the rationales for each option in safeguarding each public interest. We further stress that arguments supporting a particular policy option should take into account the sectoral context. We finally highlight the tension between the subsidiarity principle, which would call for local regulations as platforms mostly concern local transactions and innovation policies that aim to support innovation and a single digital market.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2019-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.217","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46609686","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}
This article empirically assesses the relationship between government use of the web, service performance, and cost ‐ effectiveness. It tests and challenges the assumption, prevalent in government thinking and in the Digital Era Governance (DEG) quasi ‐ paradigm, that the delivery of web ‐ based public services is associated with better outcomes. English local government is used as a test case, for which (uniquely) good ‐ quality full ‐ population time ‐ series data for council performance, cost, and web quality are available. A new panel data set is constructed covering 2002 – 2008, allowing the actual relationship between web performance and council cost and quality to be estimated using dynamic regression models which control for both general changes over time and the time ‐ invariant differences between councils. Consistent growth is shown in the scope and quality of local government web provision. Despite this, and governmental enthusiasm for bringing services online, no association is found between web development and performance, or cost ‐ effectiveness. The article concludes that governments ’ enthusiasm for citizen ‐ facing digital government is not supported by this empirical data, and that a skeptical view is warranted of DEG ’ s advocacy of digitalization as a core focus for service improvement.
{"title":"Local Government Performance, Cost‐Effectiveness, and Use of the Web: An Empirical Analysis","authors":"T. Nicholls","doi":"10.1002/POI3.209","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.209","url":null,"abstract":"This article empirically assesses the relationship between government use of the web, service performance, and cost ‐ effectiveness. It tests and challenges the assumption, prevalent in government thinking and in the Digital Era Governance (DEG) quasi ‐ paradigm, that the delivery of web ‐ based public services is associated with better outcomes. English local government is used as a test case, for which (uniquely) good ‐ quality full ‐ population time ‐ series data for council performance, cost, and web quality are available. A new panel data set is constructed covering 2002 – 2008, allowing the actual relationship between web performance and council cost and quality to be estimated using dynamic regression models which control for both general changes over time and the time ‐ invariant differences between councils. Consistent growth is shown in the scope and quality of local government web provision. Despite this, and governmental enthusiasm for bringing services online, no association is found between web development and performance, or cost ‐ effectiveness. The article concludes that governments ’ enthusiasm for citizen ‐ facing digital government is not supported by this empirical data, and that a skeptical view is warranted of DEG ’ s advocacy of digitalization as a core focus for service improvement.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2019-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.209","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42075714","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}
Revelations about the misuse and insecurity of user data gathered by social media platforms have renewed discussions about how best to characterize property rights in user data. At the same time, revelations about the use of social media platforms to disseminate disinformation and hate speech have prompted debates over the need for government regulation to assure that these platforms serve the public interest. These debates often hinge on whether any of the established rationales for media regulation apply to social media. This paper argues that the public resource rationale that has been utilized in traditional media regulation in the U.S. applies to social media. The public resource rationale contends that, when a media outlet utilizes a public resource – such as the broadcast spectrum, or public rights of way – the outlet must abide by certain public interest obligations that may infringe upon its First Amendment rights. This paper argues that aggregate user data can be conceptualized as a public resource that triggers the application of a public interest regulatory framework to social media sites and other digital platforms that derive their revenue from the gathering, sharing, and monetization of massive aggregations of user data.
{"title":"User Data as Public Resource: Implications for Social Media Regulation","authors":"Philip M. Napoli","doi":"10.1002/POI3.216","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.216","url":null,"abstract":"Revelations about the misuse and insecurity of user data gathered by social media platforms have renewed discussions about how best to characterize property rights in user data. At the same time, revelations about the use of social media platforms to disseminate disinformation and hate speech have prompted debates over the need for government regulation to assure that these platforms serve the public interest. These debates often hinge on whether any of the established rationales for media regulation apply to social media. This paper argues that the public resource rationale that has been utilized in traditional media regulation in the U.S. applies to social media. The public resource rationale contends that, when a media outlet utilizes a public resource – such as the broadcast spectrum, or public rights of way – the outlet must abide by certain public interest obligations that may infringe upon its First Amendment rights. This paper argues that aggregate user data can be conceptualized as a public resource that triggers the application of a public interest regulatory framework to social media sites and other digital platforms that derive their revenue from the gathering, sharing, and monetization of massive aggregations of user data.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2019-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.216","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43145558","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}
This article examines “soft facts” about security issues in the 2016 Brexit referendum campaign. Soft facts arise when information provenance is uncertain, and are forms of malleable and contingent knowledge, such as rumors, conspiracy theories, and propaganda. There is a growing appreciation that digital communications environments are especially conducive to the dissemination of these kinds of information. Informed by empirical data comprising forty‐five thousand nine hundred and fifty‐seven data points collected by monitoring social media before and after the UK Brexit referendum campaign (June 16–October 12, 2016), the analysis examines how and why a series of soft facts concerning Brexit were mobilized. By developing the concept of “digital prophecy,” the article explores how influence is exerted by online prophets who were connecting current events to past grievances, to advance negative predictions about the future. This starts to capture the tradecraft of digital influencing, in ways that move beyond the structural topologies of communication networks. In policy terms, the analysis reminds us of the need to attend not just to how influence is achieved through fake news (e.g., using social media bots to amplify a message), but also why influence is sought in the first place.
{"title":"Prophets and Loss: How “Soft Facts” on Social Media Influenced the Brexit Campaign and Social Reactions to the Murder of Jo Cox MP","authors":"Diyana Dobreva, Daniel Grinnell, M. Innes","doi":"10.1002/POI3.203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.203","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines “soft facts” about security issues in the 2016 Brexit referendum campaign. Soft facts arise when information provenance is uncertain, and are forms of malleable and contingent knowledge, such as rumors, conspiracy theories, and propaganda. There is a growing appreciation that digital communications environments are especially conducive to the dissemination of these kinds of information. Informed by empirical data comprising forty‐five thousand nine hundred and fifty‐seven data points collected by monitoring social media before and after the UK Brexit referendum campaign (June 16–October 12, 2016), the analysis examines how and why a series of soft facts concerning Brexit were mobilized. By developing the concept of “digital prophecy,” the article explores how influence is exerted by online prophets who were connecting current events to past grievances, to advance negative predictions about the future. This starts to capture the tradecraft of digital influencing, in ways that move beyond the structural topologies of communication networks. In policy terms, the analysis reminds us of the need to attend not just to how influence is achieved through fake news (e.g., using social media bots to amplify a message), but also why influence is sought in the first place.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2019-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.203","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45964638","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}
Automated decision making is becoming the norm across large parts of society, which raises interesting liability challenges when human control over technical systems becomes increasingly limited. This article defines "quasi-automation" as inclusion of humans as a basic rubber-stamping mechanism in an otherwise completely automated decision-making system. Three cases of quasi- automation are examined, where human agency in decision making is currently debatable: self- driving cars, border searches based on passenger name records, and content moderation on social media. While there are specific regulatory mechanisms for purely automated decision making, these regulatory mechanisms do not apply if human beings are (rubber-stamping) automated decisions. More broadly, most regulatory mechanisms follow a pattern of binary liability in attempting to regulate human or machine agency, rather than looking to regulate both. This results in regulatory gray areas where the regulatory mechanisms do not apply, harming human rights by preventing meaningful liability for socio-technical decision making. The article concludes by proposing criteria to ensure meaningful agency when humans are included in automated decision-making systems, and relates this to the ongoing debate on enabling human rights in Internet infrastructure.
{"title":"Liable, but Not in Control? Ensuring Meaningful Human Agency in Automated Decision-Making Systems","authors":"B. Wagner","doi":"10.1002/POI3.198","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.198","url":null,"abstract":"Automated decision making is becoming the norm across large parts of society, which raises \u0000interesting liability challenges when human control over technical systems becomes increasingly \u0000limited. This article defines \"quasi-automation\" as inclusion of humans as a basic rubber-stamping \u0000mechanism in an otherwise completely automated decision-making system. Three cases of quasi- \u0000automation are examined, where human agency in decision making is currently debatable: self- \u0000driving cars, border searches based on passenger name records, and content moderation on social \u0000media. While there are specific regulatory mechanisms for purely automated decision making, these \u0000regulatory mechanisms do not apply if human beings are (rubber-stamping) automated decisions. \u0000More broadly, most regulatory mechanisms follow a pattern of binary liability in attempting to \u0000regulate human or machine agency, rather than looking to regulate both. This results in regulatory \u0000gray areas where the regulatory mechanisms do not apply, harming human rights by preventing \u0000meaningful liability for socio-technical decision making. The article concludes by proposing criteria \u0000to ensure meaningful agency when humans are included in automated decision-making systems, \u0000and relates this to the ongoing debate on enabling human rights in Internet infrastructure.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.198","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49484323","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：