Por que empresas de mídia insistem que não são empresas de mídia, por que estão erradas e por que isso importa

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 em ser caracterizados como empresas de mídia. Ao contrário, empresas como Google, Facebook e Twitter tem constantemente insistido que deveriam ser pensadas como puramente empresas de tecnologia. Este artigo critica a opinião que estas plataformas são empresas de tecnologias ao invés de empresas de mídia, explora seus argumentos subjacentes e considera as implicações políticas, legais e regulatórias associadas com o aceite ou recusa desta opinião. Como o artigo ilustra, não é apenas uma distinção semântica, dado que o histórico de classificação precisa de tecnologias e serviços da comunicação possui profundas implicações em como estas tecnologias e serviços da comunicação são avaliadas por decisores políticos e tribunais

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

Networked Platform Governance: The Construction of the Democratic Platform

Over the last several years, concerns about the credibility or trustworthiness of information online have been mounting. At the center of these concerns were questions about the role platform companies—particularly search and social media—should play in controlling access to information online. This article explores the ways that platform companies are trying to distribute the responsibility for content policy making to external stakeholders in response to concerns about their unilateral control and proposes that platforms are deploying a brokered form of network governance that presents opportunities for platform governance but also new concerns for accountability. Using a discourse analysis of public statements from platform companies, as well as corporate documents, it examines three ways in which platforms position their relationships with external stakeholder groups and communicate their relational power, to examine the ways in which the language of network governance is used to gesture toward inclusivity and participation in content policy making and to address resource and functional gaps when operating at scale

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.</jats:p

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

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. </jats:p