Por qué las empresas de medios insisten en que no son empresas de medios, por qué están equivocadas y por qué es importante

Una postura común entre las plataformas de redes sociales y los agregadores de contenido es su resistencia a ser caracterizados como empresas mediáticas. En cambio, compañías como Google, Facebook y Twitter insisten reiteradamente en que deben ser consideradas como empresas puramente tecnológicas. Este artículo critica la posición que sostiene que estas plataformas son compañías tecnológicas en lugar de empresas de medios, explora la racionalidad que subyace a esta idea y tiene en cuenta las implicancias políticas, legales y de política pública asociadas con la aceptación o el rechazo de esta postura. Como ilustra este artículo, no se trata de una mera distinción semántica, ya que la precisa clasificación de los servicios y las tecnologías de comunicación a lo largo de la historia tiene profundas ramificaciones sobre cómo estas tecnologías y servicios son considerados por quienes elaboran políticas públicas y por las cortes judiciales.A common position amongst social media platforms and online content aggregators is their resistance to being characterized as media companies. Rather, companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter have regularly insisted that they should be thought of purely as technology companies. This paper critiques the position that these platforms are technology companies rather than media companies, explores the underlying rationales, and considers the political, legal, and policy implications associated with accepting or rejecting this position. As this paper illustrates, this is no mere semantic distinction, given the history of the precise classification of communications technologies and services having profound ramifications for how these technologies and services are considered by policy-makers and the courts.Uma posição comum entre plataformas de mídia social e agregadores de conteúdo é sua resistência a serem caracterizadas como empresas de mídia. Em vez disso, empresas como Google, Facebook e Twitter insistem repetidamente em que devem ser consideradas como empresas puramente tecnológicas. Este artigo critica a posição de que essas plataformas são empresas de tecnologia em vez de empresas de mídia, explora a lógica por trás dessa idéia e leva em conta as implicações políticas, legais e de políticas públicas associadas à aceitação ou rejeição desta posição. Como ilustra este artigo, não é uma mera distinção semântica, porque o histórico da classificação precisa de serviços e tecnologias de comunicação tem ramificações profundas em como essas tecnologias e serviços são considerados por aqueles que elaboram políticas públicas e pelos tribunais judiciais.El presente artículo es una traducción del texto de Napoli, P y Caplan, R. (2017), "Why media companies insist they’re not media companies, why they’re wrong, and why it matters", First Monday, 22 (5).Facultad de Trabajo Socia

Por qué las empresas de medios insisten en que no son empresas de medios, por qué están equivocadas y por qué es importante

A common position amongst social media platforms and online content aggregators is their resistance to being characterized as media companies. Rather, companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter have regularly insisted that they should be thought of purely as technology companies. This paper critiques the position that these platforms are technology companies rather than media companies, explores the underlying rationales, and considers the political, legal, and policy implications associated with accepting or rejecting this position. As this paper illustrates, this is no mere semantic distinction, given the history of the precise classification of communications technologies and services having profound ramifications for how these technologies and services are considered by policy-makers and the courts.Una postura común entre las plataformas de redes sociales y los agregadores[1] de contenido es su resistencia a ser caracterizados como empresas mediáticas. En cambio, compañías como Google, Facebook y Twitter insisten reiteradamente en que deben ser consideradas como empresas puramente tecnológicas. Este artículo critica la posición que sostiene que estas plataformas son compañías tecnológicas en lugar de empresas de medios, explora la racionalidad que subyace a esta idea y tiene en cuenta las implicancias políticas, legales y de política pública asociadas con la aceptación o el rechazo de esta postura. Como ilustra este artículo, no se trata de una mera distinción semántica, ya que la precisa clasificación de los servicios y las tecnologías de comunicación a lo largo de la historia tiene profundas ramificaciones sobre cómo estas tecnologías y servicios son considerados por quienes elaboran políticas públicas y por las cortes judiciales.   [1] N. del T.: En su versión original, el artículo utiliza en algunas ocasiones la palabra “agregadores de contenidos” [content aggregators] y en otras se refiere a “curadores de contenidos” [content curators]. En esta traducción se optó en la mayoría de los casos por la noción de “agregadores de contenidos” por ser el término más utilizado en español, y porque alude de modo más cabal a la tarea de selección y organización de contenidos que realizan estas empresas.Uma posição comum entre plataformas de mídia social e agregadores de conteúdo é sua resistência a serem caracterizadas como empresas de mídia. Em vez disso, empresas como Google, Facebook e Twitter insistem repetidamente em que devem ser consideradas como empresas puramente tecnológicas. Este artigo critica a posição de que essas plataformas são empresas de tecnologia em vez de empresas de mídia, explora a lógica por trás dessa idéia e leva em conta as implicações políticas, legais e de políticas públicas associadas à aceitação ou rejeição desta posição. Como ilustra este artigo, não é uma mera distinção semântica, porque o histórico da classificação precisa de serviços e tecnologias de comunicação tem ramificações profundas em como essas tecnologias e serviços são considerados por aqueles que elaboram políticas públicas e pelos tribunais judiciais

Bureaucracy as a Lens for Analyzing and Designing Algorithmic Systems

Scholarship on algorithms has drawn on the analogy between algorithmic systems and bureaucracies to diagnose shortcomings in algorithmic decision-making. We extend the analogy further by drawing on Michel Crozier’s theory of bureaucratic organizations to analyze the relationship between algorithmic and human decision-making power. We present algorithms as analogous to impartial bureaucratic rules for controlling action, and argue that discretionary decision-making power in algorithmic systems accumulates at locations where uncertainty about the operation of algorithms persists. This key point of our essay connects with Alkhatib and Bernstein’s theory of ’street-level algorithms’, and highlights that the role of human discretion in algorithmic systems is to accommodate uncertain situations which inflexible algorithms cannot handle. We conclude by discussing how the analysis and design of algorithmic systems could seek to identify and cultivate important sources of uncertainty, to enable the human discretionary work that enhances systemic resilience in the face of algorithmic errors.Peer reviewe

Isomorphism through algorithms: Institutional dependencies in the case of Facebook

Algorithms and data-driven technologies are increasingly being embraced by a variety of different sectors and institutions. This paper examines how algorithms and data-driven technologies, enacted by an organization like Facebook, can induce similarity across an industry. Using theories from organizational sociology and neoinstitutionalism, this paper traces the bureaucratic roots of Big Data and algorithms to examine the institutional dependencies that emerge and are mediated through data-driven and algorithmic logics. This type of analysis sheds light on how organizational contexts are embedded into algorithms, which can then become embedded within other organizational and individual practices. By investigating technical practices as organizational and bureaucratic, discussions about accountability and decision-making can be reframed

Why media companies insist they're not media companies, why they're wrong, and why it matters

A common position amongst social media platforms and online content aggregators is their resistance to being characterized as media companies. Rather, companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter have regularly insisted that they should be thought of purely as technology companies. This paper critiques the position that these platforms are technology companies rather than media companies, explores the underlying rationales, and considers the political, legal, and policy implications associated with accepting or rejecting this position. As this paper illustrates, this is no mere semantic distinction, given the history of the precise classification of communications technologies and services having profound ramifications for how these technologies and services are considered by policy-makers and the courts

Por qué las empresas de medios insisten en que no son empresas de medios, por qué están equivocadas y por qué es importante

Una postura común entre las plataformas de redes sociales y los agregadores de contenido es su resistencia a ser caracterizados como empresas mediáticas. En cambio, compañías como Google, Facebook y Twitter insisten reiteradamente en que deben ser consideradas como empresas puramente tecnológicas. Este artículo critica la posición que sostiene que estas plataformas son compañías tecnológicas en lugar de empresas de medios, explora la racionalidad que subyace a esta idea y tiene encuenta las implicancias políticas, legales y de política pública asociadas con la aceptación o el rechazo de esta postura. Como ilustra este artículo, no se trata de una mera distinción semántica, ya que la precisa clasificación de los servicios y las tecnologías de comunicación a lo largo de la historia tiene profundas ramificaciones sobre cómo estas tecnologías y servicios son considerados por quienes elaboran políticas públicas y por las cortes judiciales

Introduction to the special issue on Locating and theorising platform power

Against the backdrop of ongoing public and political debates about the power and regulation of large platform conglomerates, this special issue calls for more critical, conceptual, and empirical studies on platform power. While a lot of valuable research has already been done, we see a tendency in both public and scholarly debates on leading platform companies to develop one-sided, monolithic understandings of this power. Instead, we want to argue for a relational perspective, which focuses on the relations of dependence that grow around specific platforms. Therefore, contributions locate and theorise platform power. Through specific case studies on particular types of platforms the contributions home in on the various modalities of power. The papers address three broader themes that speak to the different facets of platform power: (1) analysing platform infrastructures and markets; (2) platform governance; (3) the negotiation of platform power and its alternatives

LOCATING AND THEORIZING PLATFORM POWER

This panel locates and theorizes platform power through five case studies, focussing on: 1) video sharing platforms, 2) app stores, 3) programmatic advertising networks, 4) labor staffing intermediaries, and 5) cloud computing. Each case study starts with the question: where do relations of dependence take shape on the examined platform(s) and how are these relations organized? Addressing this question, the panelists hypothesize that platform power is exerted, codified, and operationalized around particular infrastructural platform services, which enable specific economic activities, such as advertising, content sharing, data analysis, labor staffing and management, cloud hosting, and so on. Examining these services, the panelists specifically focus on the evolution of platforms. Infrastructural services, such as Facebook Reels or the Apple’s App Store each set standards and provide gateways for complementors–content and service providers, advertisers, data intermediaries, talent agencies–to access other institutional actors, data, and end-users. Yet, such services are also constantly adapted to local regulatory frameworks, to retain end-users and complementors, and to respond to competitors in platform ecosystems. In turn, such changes force complementors to adapt their own operations to continue offering their products and services through the platform. It is in these moments of change, when relations of dependence are reshuffled, that platform power becomes most visible. In combination, the five case studies will provide more detailed insights into how and where relations of dependence take shape in the platform ecosystem and how these relations evolve over time

Increasing time delay from presentation until surgical referral for hepatobiliary malignancies

AbstractBackgroundStudies have shown that delayed treatment of several non-hepatobiliary (HB) malignancies is associated with adverse effects on disease progression and survival. Delayed treatment of HB malignancies has not been thoroughly investigated.MethodsWe performed a retrospective institutional review of patients referred to the Hepatobiliary Surgery Service at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) for hepatobiliary malignancies from 2002 to 2008. Primary outcomes included the time delays (TD) in patient workup. Secondary outcomes were reasons for delay as well as disparities in TD based on demographic factors.ResultsMultivariate-adjusted linear regression showed a significant trend of increasing time from presentation until referral to a HB surgeon over the 7-year period (P= 0.001). There were no differences in TD by gender, age or education level. Multivariate-adjusted linear regression showed a significant trend of increasing number of imaging tests performed prior to referral [computerized tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET) and ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound (US/EUS)] (P < 0.001). Multivariate-adjusted linear regression in resectable patients showed a significant difference in overall length of survival in those with a TD1 > 30 days compared with those with a TD1 (TD from presentation until referral) <30 days (P= 0.042).ConclusionsDelays were associated with an increase in imaging studies and delays adversely affect survival in resected patients. Referring physicians are encouraged to expedite the evaluation and early referral of all patients to an HB surgeon for evaluation and treatment