执行平台治理:Facebook 与数据关系的舞台管理

IF 2.7 2区 哲学 Q1 ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Science and Engineering Ethics Pub Date : 2024-04-04 DOI:10.1007/s11948-024-00473-5
Karen Huang, P. M. Krafft
{"title":"执行平台治理:Facebook 与数据关系的舞台管理","authors":"Karen Huang, P. M. Krafft","doi":"10.1007/s11948-024-00473-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Controversies surrounding social media platforms have provided opportunities for institutional reflexivity amongst users and regulators on how to understand and govern platforms. Amidst contestation, platform companies have continued to enact projects that draw upon existing modes of privatized governance. We investigate how social media companies have attempted to achieve closure by continuing to set the terms around platform governance. We investigate two projects implemented by Facebook (Meta)—authenticity regulation and privacy controls—in response to the Russian Interference and Cambridge Analytica controversies surrounding the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Drawing on Goffman’s metaphor of stage management, we analyze the techniques deployed by Facebook to reinforce a division between what is visible and invisible to the user experience. These platform governance projects propose to act upon <i>front-stage data relations:</i> information that users can see from other users—whether that is content that users can see from “bad actors”, or information that other users can see about oneself. At the same time, these projects relegate <i>back-stage data relations</i>—information flows between users constituted by recommendation and targeted advertising systems—to invisibility and inaction. As such, Facebook renders the user experience actionable for governance, while foreclosing governance of back-stage data relations central to the economic value of the platform. As social media companies continue to perform platform governance projects following controversies, our paper invites reflection on the politics of these projects. By destabilizing the boundaries drawn by platform companies, we open space for continuous reflexivity on how platforms should be understood and governed.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":"57 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performing Platform Governance: Facebook and the Stage Management of Data Relations\",\"authors\":\"Karen Huang, P. M. Krafft\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11948-024-00473-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Controversies surrounding social media platforms have provided opportunities for institutional reflexivity amongst users and regulators on how to understand and govern platforms. Amidst contestation, platform companies have continued to enact projects that draw upon existing modes of privatized governance. We investigate how social media companies have attempted to achieve closure by continuing to set the terms around platform governance. We investigate two projects implemented by Facebook (Meta)—authenticity regulation and privacy controls—in response to the Russian Interference and Cambridge Analytica controversies surrounding the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Drawing on Goffman’s metaphor of stage management, we analyze the techniques deployed by Facebook to reinforce a division between what is visible and invisible to the user experience. These platform governance projects propose to act upon <i>front-stage data relations:</i> information that users can see from other users—whether that is content that users can see from “bad actors”, or information that other users can see about oneself. At the same time, these projects relegate <i>back-stage data relations</i>—information flows between users constituted by recommendation and targeted advertising systems—to invisibility and inaction. As such, Facebook renders the user experience actionable for governance, while foreclosing governance of back-stage data relations central to the economic value of the platform. As social media companies continue to perform platform governance projects following controversies, our paper invites reflection on the politics of these projects. By destabilizing the boundaries drawn by platform companies, we open space for continuous reflexivity on how platforms should be understood and governed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49564,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science and Engineering Ethics\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science and Engineering Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00473-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Engineering Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00473-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

围绕社交媒体平台的争议为用户和监管机构提供了反思如何理解和管理平台的机会。在争议中,平台公司继续利用现有的私有化治理模式开展项目。我们研究了社交媒体公司如何通过继续设定平台治理的条件来实现封闭。我们调查了 Facebook(Meta)针对围绕 2016 年美国总统大选的 "俄罗斯干预 "和 "剑桥分析 "争议而实施的两个项目--真实性监管和隐私控制。借鉴戈夫曼的 "舞台管理 "隐喻,我们分析了 Facebook 为强化用户体验中可见与不可见内容之间的划分而采用的技术。这些平台管理项目建议对前台数据关系采取行动:用户可以从其他用户那里看到的信息--无论是用户可以从 "不良行为者 "那里看到的内容,还是其他用户可以看到的关于自己的信息。与此同时,这些项目将后台数据关系--由推荐和定向广告系统构成的用户之间的信息流--置于不可见和不作为的境地。因此,Facebook 在对用户体验进行可操作的管理的同时,却排除了对对平台经济价值至关重要的后台数据关系的管理。随着社交媒体公司在争议之后继续实施平台治理项目,我们的论文引发了对这些项目政治性的反思。通过颠覆平台公司划定的界限,我们为如何理解和治理平台打开了持续反思的空间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Performing Platform Governance: Facebook and the Stage Management of Data Relations

Controversies surrounding social media platforms have provided opportunities for institutional reflexivity amongst users and regulators on how to understand and govern platforms. Amidst contestation, platform companies have continued to enact projects that draw upon existing modes of privatized governance. We investigate how social media companies have attempted to achieve closure by continuing to set the terms around platform governance. We investigate two projects implemented by Facebook (Meta)—authenticity regulation and privacy controls—in response to the Russian Interference and Cambridge Analytica controversies surrounding the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Drawing on Goffman’s metaphor of stage management, we analyze the techniques deployed by Facebook to reinforce a division between what is visible and invisible to the user experience. These platform governance projects propose to act upon front-stage data relations: information that users can see from other users—whether that is content that users can see from “bad actors”, or information that other users can see about oneself. At the same time, these projects relegate back-stage data relations—information flows between users constituted by recommendation and targeted advertising systems—to invisibility and inaction. As such, Facebook renders the user experience actionable for governance, while foreclosing governance of back-stage data relations central to the economic value of the platform. As social media companies continue to perform platform governance projects following controversies, our paper invites reflection on the politics of these projects. By destabilizing the boundaries drawn by platform companies, we open space for continuous reflexivity on how platforms should be understood and governed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Science and Engineering Ethics
Science and Engineering Ethics 综合性期刊-工程:综合
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.40%
发文量
54
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science and Engineering Ethics is an international multidisciplinary journal dedicated to exploring ethical issues associated with science and engineering, covering professional education, research and practice as well as the effects of technological innovations and research findings on society. While the focus of this journal is on science and engineering, contributions from a broad range of disciplines, including social sciences and humanities, are welcomed. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, ethics of new and emerging technologies, research ethics, computer ethics, energy ethics, animals and human subjects ethics, ethics education in science and engineering, ethics in design, biomedical ethics, values in technology and innovation. We welcome contributions that deal with these issues from an international perspective, particularly from countries that are underrepresented in these discussions.
期刊最新文献
"Business as usual"? Safe-by-Design Vis-à-Vis Proclaimed Safety Cultures in Technology Development for the Bioeconomy. Justifying Our Credences in the Trustworthiness of AI Systems: A Reliabilistic Approach. Know Thyself, Improve Thyself: Personalized LLMs for Self-Knowledge and Moral Enhancement. Authorship and Citizen Science: Seven Heuristic Rules. A Confucian Algorithm for Autonomous Vehicles.
×
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