Platform Governance as Reflexive Coordination - Mediating Nudity, Hate Speech And Fake News On Facebook

Background Digital platforms have become dominant players in contemporary societies by positioning themselves as key sites for social communication and transactions (van Dijck, 2013). With platform governance becoming a major concern, scholars have increasingly turned their attention to the ways how platforms perform this intermediary role – most notably to algorithms, practices and policies (Gillespie, 2014; Roberts, 2016; DeNardis & Hackl, 2015). What is still scarce, is (a) research that frames and explains these phenomena with key concepts of social theory, and (b) longitudinal studies that track these developments over time. This paper contributes to the debate theoretically by establishing a concept of platform governance as reflexive coordination based on institutional theory, and empirically by presenting a longitudinal study (2005-2016) that combines the analysis of Facebook’s evolving policies and practices on controversial content (nudity, hate speech, fake news) with a policy and discourse analysis. Theorizing Platform Governance as Reflexive Coordination Governance is widely used as an umbrella term for all sorts of ordering and regulation processes. Yet, it is a notoriously slippery term that often remains vague and difficult to operationalize, repeatedly conflated with the term regulation. This conceptual weakness is reflected in the literature on platform governance. Governance of p latforms usually refers to public policy measures that try to steer platforms dynamics towards common good (safe harbor, tax and competition policy); governance by p latforms addresses companies’ own measures (policies, algorithms) to influence behavior on their platform But this conflation of governance and regulation diminishes the concepts’ analytical value. Neither the side effects of actions and processes pursuing non-regulatory goals (such as Facebook optimizing its platform for engagement), nor the role of public Platform Governance as Reflexive Coordination – Mediating Nudity, Hate Speech and Fake News on Platforms.PaperpresentedatAoIR2017:The18thAnnualConferenceoftheAssociationofInternet Researchers. Tartu, Estonia: AoIR. Retrieved from http://spir.aoir.org. debates and user complaints can be adequately captured with a regulatory perspective. Thus, following recent theoretical contributions we apply a broader concept of governance as ordering. Specifically, we propose to understand platform governance as reflexive coordination ( Hofmann et al., 2016) – integrating diverse modes of ordering (terms of service, public debate, algorithms) but focusing on controversies and those critical moments when routine activities become object of contestation and need to be revised. This enables us to understand platform governance as an encompassing social process that is not only exercised by platforms and regulatory agencies. Methods Bringing together a longitudinal analysis of the platforms evolving policies and community guidelines with an analysis of the public discourse on Facebook’s handling of controversial content, we investigate empirically how content rules on platforms evolve as a subject of public conflict and controversy. The analysis of Facebook’s terms of service and community guidelines is based on a corpus of 31 documents collected through the Internet Archive’s “Wayback Machine” ranging from 2005 to 2016. For the discourse analysis, we used the Dow Jones Factiva news database to extract all english-language articles of major news and business sources containing “facebook”, and “terms of service” or “community standards” as well as respective synonyms from 2004 to 2016. Applying thematic filtering and coding tools in order to identify relevant actors, statements and critiques resulted in three separate sets of documents: 257 on nudity, 240 on hate speech, and 29 on fake news. Results Despite recent spikes in public attention, our analysis reveals for all three cases a long-term processes, in which the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate content on the platform is negotiated, institutionalized and contested. In the case of nudity, a long-standing debate on the appropriateness of breastfeeding pictures constitutes a critical moment: Facebook’s routine of deleting photos displaying parts of female breasts regardless of context became contested for the first time in 2007 when more and more families started noticing the ban of breastfeeding pictures. Following public discourse turning the issue back and forth for years, fueled by repeated public outcries and online petitions, Facebook in 2013 introduced an explicit exemption for its content rules (with updated wording 2015) that “photos of women actively engaged in breastfeeding” are always allowed. Since then, our data shows a clear decrease in public debate. Finding adequate criteria for handling nudity on Facebook only became an issue again when Facebook removed an iconic Vietnam War photo (“Napalm Girl”) in 2016. This time, Facebook responded quickly to the international outcry, reinstated the photo, and later announced a change to its internal content moderation process allowing “more items that people find newsworthy [...] — even if they might otherwise violate our standards.” In the context of hate speech, Facebook’s policies have become more and more explicit and resolute over time: from “inappropriate content” that “simply [does] not belong in a community like Facebook” (2007) to constituting its own category in 2011 defined as a form of inappropriate behaviour that the platform “does not tolerate”. In 2015, the hate speech policy grew to 274 words in 13 paragraphs, most notably by adding language to explain and justify procedures. The discourse analysis shows clear spikes at the end of 2015 due to Europe’s refugee situation, and a push from politicians, above all in Germany, to act more diligently. However, Facebook’s official hate speech policy has remained unchanged; instead responses include public engagement campaigns (e.g. promoting counter-speech), and the adaptation of internal enforcement procedures (eg.“migrants” now constitute a “quasi-protected group” in Facebook’s internal content moderation guidelines). Albeit not termed fake news, false or misleading information has been identified as a problematic issue long before the 2016 US-election. Facebook prohibits users for a long time from using the platform “to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory”, and Facebook Pages “must not contain false, misleading, fraudulent, or deceptive claims or content.” Not surprisingly, our data shows an uptake of fake news discourse towards the end of 2016, displaying a strong frame that compares Facebook’s standards for handling fake news with the professional standards and regulations of journalism. While (yet) not present in its policies, Facebook has adapted its routines by integrating fake news into the categories that users tick to justify flagging of objectionable content. In the US and Germany, the company is partnering with journalistic organizations to fact-check flagged content. If there is no evidence for the facts presented, it will be flagged as “disputed”, reducing possibilities for further sharing and monetizing this content. Discussion Bringing together a new conceptual approach to governance and a longitudinal empirical study we were able to characterize platform governance as an evolving negotiation process. This process oscillates between Facebook’s unilateral provisions, user engagement, public discourse, and public policy measures – jointly and sometimes antagonistically institutionalizing distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate content. Critical moments occur when the parties involved disagree; in the controversies all stakeholders need to legitimize their perspectives and practices – abandoning their every-day routines. Thus, this process is not merely “governance by shock” (Annany & Gillespie, 2016), the changes in policies cannot always directly attributed to public demands. The critical moments highlighted in our empirical study are rather temporary tips of the iceberg that is the long-lasting ongoing negotiation process. Taken together, our analysis shows that attention in this negotiation process has shifted from platform policies to the practices of enforcement

The Turn to Artificial Intelligence in Governing Communication Online

Presently, we are witnessing an intense debate about technological advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) research and its deployment in various societal domains and contexts. In this context, media and communications is one of the most prominent and contested fields. Bots, voice assistants, automated (fake) news generation, content moderation and filtering – all of these are examples of how AI and machine learning are transforming the dynamics and order of digital communication. On 20 March 2018 the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society together with the non-governmental organisation Access Now hosted the one-day expert workshop “The turn to AI in governing communication online”. International experts from academia, politics, civil society and business gathered in Berlin to discuss the complex socio-technical questions and issues concerning subjects such as artificial intelligence technologies, machine learning systems, the extent of their deployment in content moderation and the range of approaches to understanding the status and future impact of AI systems for governing social communication on the internet. This workshop report summarises and documents the authors’ main takeaways from the discussions. The discussions, comments and questions raised and responses from experts also fed into the report. The report has been distributed among workshop participants. It is intended to contribute current perspectives to the discourse on AI and the governance of communication

Internet & human rights in foreign policy: comparing narratives in the US and EU internet governance agenda

The intricate relationship between Internet, on the one hand, and Human Rights, on the other, is increasingly becoming relevant in foreign policy. Discussions are animated by different actors, providing contributions from multiple perspectives, yet the debate on Internet and Human Rights is still fragmented and has not evolved into a unified agenda. This paper explores this on-going debate over competing perspectives, and frames the current discussion on Internet and Human Rights in foreign policy by providing an overview of the key governmental conferences addressing the Internet and Human rights over the first 3 years (2010-2012) since the beginning of the debate. It then proceeds to analyze key narratives, stakeholders and agendas within these conferences, as well as questions of power and legitimacy. Finally, it argues that the conferences draw from a common discourse and language, but are also representing divergent agendas between stakeholders and states

Between coordination and regulation: finding the governance in Internet governance

Following recent theoretical contributions, this article suggests a new approach to finding the governance in Internet governance. Studies on Internet governance rely on contradictory notions of governance. The common understanding of governance as some form of deliberate steering or regulation clashes with equally common definitions of Internet governance as distributed modes of ordering. Drawing on controversies in the broader field of governance and regulation studies, we propose to resolve this conceptual conundrum by grounding governance in mundane activities of coordination. We define governance as reflexive coordination – focusing on those ‘critical moments’, when routine activities become problematic and need to be revised, thus, when regular coordination itself requires coordination. Regulation, in turn, can be understood as targeted public or private interventions aiming to influence the behaviour of others. With this distinction between governance and regulation, we offer a conceptual framework for empirical studies of doing Internet governance

DOING INTERNET GOVERNANCE - STS-INFORMED PERSPECTIVES ON ORDERING THE NET

Internet governance - an important, but often overlooked area in Internet studies - is gaining increasing attention in the post-Snowden era which increased distrust of formal government institutions and their ‘dangerous liaisons with the private sector. User-driven, technology-embedded, decentralized approaches to contracts, currency, privacy protection keep on seeing the light. Politics and traditional purveyors of authority negotiate ways of reinventing and distributing themselves. Thus, investigating the ordering and governing processes as they relate to the network of networks is both timely and important.Traditionally, when talking about Internet Governance (with capital letters) researchers and practitioners refer to the new organizations and institutions that have been explicitly established to regulate, discuss, and negotiate issues of internet governance. This approach left the field mainly to legal scholars, political scientists, and institutional economists looking at institutions and processes such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Numbers and Names (ICANN), UN’s 2003 and 2005 World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), and the ongoing Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Recently, authors have criticized this institutional focus arguing for the need for a more comprehensive conceptualization of Internet governance (DeNardis 2012, Eeten/Mueller 2013, Musiani 2014, Hofmann et al. 2014).Among these recent developments, a small set of publications has drawn on perspectives from Science and Technology Studies (STS) in order to rethink and substantiate questions of ordering the net. These contributions highlight the day-to-day, mundane practices that constitute internet governance, take into account the plurality and ‘‘networkedness’’ of devices and arrangements involved, and investigate the invisibility, pervasiveness, and apparent agency of the digital infrastructure itself (Musiani 2014). In this way, STS-informed perspectives are increasingly instrumental for challenging and expanding our understanding and for informing our examination of ordering and governing processes in the digital realm.This panel seeks to nurture this nascent interest by pioneering a conversation on the governance of digitally networked environments from an STS-informed perspective. The papers grouped into this panel share a strong conceptual interest in understanding processes of ordering and governing the internet as a core infrastructure of our daily lives. With references to diverse controversies and phenomena (like data centers and cloud infrastructures, the negotiation of LGTB conflicts on different layers of internet architectures, discourses around multistakeholderism, the translation of copyright regulation into platform algorithms) the panel mobilizes perspectives from Science and Technology Studies (STS) to substantiate – and complicate in its best sense – our understanding of internet governance processes.This discussion is highly relevant beyond the core internet governance research community or groups of STS scholars interested in this specific “field-site”. First, it touches upon fundamental issues for all internet scholars: how the norms shaping the provision, design and usage of the internet are negotiated, de- and re-stabilized and subject to controversies. Second, for internet governance scholars, STS opens up new perspectives on digital uses and practices, delving into the variety of ways in which they are an integral part of today’s Internet governance -- not only because such practices reflect belonging and commitment to a community, but because they allow issues of sovereignty, autonomy and liberty come into play. Finally, using STS to expand the notion of governance in Internet governance opens this field to meaningful contibutions from scholars studying constitutional aspects of technology design and use, which are typically excluded from traditional Internet governance literature. This is an exercise in cross-disciplinary bridge-building