Systemic Social Media Regulation

Social media platforms are motivated by profit, corporate image, long-term viability, good citizenship, and a desire for friendly legal environments. These managerial interests stand in contrast to the gubernatorial interests of the state, which include the promotion of free speech, the development of e-commerce, various counter terrorism initiatives, and the discouragement of hate speech. Inasmuch as managerial and gubernatorial interests overlap, a self-regulation model of platform governance should prevail. Inasmuch as they diverge, regulation is desirable when its benefits exceed its costs. An assessment of the benefits and costs of social media regulation should account for how social facts, norms, and falsehoods proliferate. This Article sketches a basic economic model. What emerges from the analysis is that the quality of discourse cannot be controlled through suppression of content, or even disclosure of source. A better approach is to modify, in a manner conducive to discursive excellence, the structure of the forum. Optimal platform architecture should aim to reduce the systemic externalities generated by the social interactions that they enable, including the social costs of unlawful interference in elections and the proliferation of hate speech. Simultaneously, a systemic approach to social media regulation implies fewer controls on user behavior and content creation, and attendant First Amendment complications. Several examples are explored, including algorithmic newsfeeds, online advertising, and invited campus speakers

Social media challenges mean that the next Italian government may have to fix the rules dictated by the “Par Condicio” law

This weekend’s Italian elections are in the spotlight because of their importance to the financial stability of the Eurozone. They also raise questions about media regulation because they will be the first under a controversial new impartiality regime – that also applies to smartphones. Jacopo Genovese considers whether fair elections might be achieved more easily through policies addressing the concentration of media ownership

Book review: media regulation: governance and the interests of citizens and consumers by Peter Lunt and Sonia Livingstone

In Media Regulation, Peter Lunt and Sonia Livingstone examine the challenges of regulation in the global mediated sphere. The book explores the way that regulation affects the relations between government, the media and communications market, civil society, citizens and consumers. Dr Petros Iosifidis finds that the book’s elegant but rigorous analysis and use of case studies from all over the world make it an essential tool for undergraduate and graduate students in the field of media and communications

Substantive Media Regulation In Three Dimenstions

Changes in the political and regulatory climates are prompting calls to revive substantive government regulation of the broadcast media, specifically the now-defunct fairness doctrine. In this article, Professor Magarian attempts to sharpen the present debate over substantive regulation by closely examining earlier defenses and criticisms of the fairness doctrine. The article assesses how supporters and opponents of the fairness doctrine have characterized three issues essential for assessing the doctrine’s wisdom and constitutionality: who is regulating; who is being regulated; and the goal of the regulatory scheme. As to the first issue, who is regulating, fairness doctrine supporters emphasize the democratic polity, while opponents emphasize self-interested or captured government elites. As to the second issue, who is being regulated, supporters emphasize owners of media corporations, while opponents emphasize editors and reporters. As to the final issue, the goal of regulation, supporters emphasize the need to facilitate fulsome discussion of important public issues, while opponents emphasize the conceptually impossible aim of creating perfect balance between opposing points of view. With these contrasting positions in mind, the article attempts to synthesize principles that might guide a workable and beneficial revival of the fairness doctrine. In order to maximize the extent to which new fairness regulations would serve the political community rather than political elites, both Congress and the courts would have to take a more active role than under the former fairness doctrine in shaping and directing FCC enforcement. In order to minimize interference with socially valuable editorial functions, enforcement of fairness regulations would have to focus on countering economic disincentives to presenting political debate and, where possible, protecting editors from economic pressure imposed by owners and publishers. Finally, the goal of any new fairness regulations would most sensibly be framed as balancing the Internet’s atomization of public discourse and opinion by requiring conventional mass media to present varied perspectives on important public issues. The focus should not be on some elusive idea of balance but rather on the prominence of debate and dissension

Substantive Media Regulation in Three Dimensions

Changes in the political and regulatory climates are prompting calls to revive substantive government regulation of the broadcast media, specifically the now-defunct fairness doctrine. In this article, Professor Magarian attempts to sharpen the present debate over substantive regulation by closely examining earlier defenses and criticisms of the fairness doctrine. The article assesses how supporters and opponents of the fairness doctrine have characterized three issues essential for assessing the doctrine\u27s wisdom and constitutionality: who is regulating; who is being regulated; and the goal of the regulatory scheme. As to the first issue, who is regulating, fairness doctrine supporters emphasize the democratic polity, while opponents emphasize self-interested or captured government elites. As to the second issue, who is being regulated, supporters emphasize owners of media corporations, while opponents emphasize editors and reporters. As to the final issue, the goal of regulation, supporters emphasize the need to facilitate fulsome discussion of important public issues, while opponents emphasize the conceptually impossible aim of creating perfect balance between opposing points of view. With these contrasting positions in mind, the article attempts to synthesize principles that might guide a workable and beneficial revival of the fairness doctrine. In order to maximize the extent to which new fairness regulations would serve the political community rather than political elites, both Congress and the courts would have to take a more active role than under the former fairness doctrine in shaping and directing FCC enforcement. In order to minimize interference with socially valuable editorial functions, enforcement of fairness regulations would have to focus on countering economic disincentives to presenting political debate and, where possible, protecting editors from economic pressure imposed by owners and publishers. Finally, the goal of any new fairness regulations would most sensibly be framed as balancing the Internet\u27s atomization of public discourse and opinion by requiring conventional mass media to present varied perspectives on important public issues. The focus should not be on some elusive idea of balance but rather on the prominence of debate and dissension

Access to Audiences as a First Amendment Right: Its Relevance and Implications for Electronic Media Policy

When the issue of speakers’ rights of access arises in media regulation and policy contexts, the focus typically is on the concept of speakers’ rights of access “to the media,” or “to the press.” This right usually is premised on the audience’s need for access to diverse sources and content. In contrast, in many non-mediated contexts, the concept of speakers’ rights of access frequently is defined in terms of the speaker’s own First Amendment right of access to audiences. This paper explores the important distinctions between these differing interpretations of a speaker’s access rights and argues that the concept of a speaker’s right of access to audiences merits a more prominent position in electronic media regulation and policy. This paper then explores the implications of such a shift in perspective for media regulation and policy-making

Devolving media regulation: The Smith Commission proposals

Telecommunications researcher Ewan Sutherland argues that the Smith Commission’s proposed devolution solutions for media regulation are messy proposals that create redundant unaccountable positions and ignore important regulatory bodies

How to Evaluate the Constitutional Legitimacy of Regulating Speech Intermediaries: Lessons from a Century-Long Experience of Media Regulation

This Article aims to supply policymakers and jurists with an ideologically-neutral framework for evaluating the legitimacy of imposing public interest duties on today’s dominant communicative technologies, such as Netflix, YouTube, or Facebook. In contrast to current literature, which often advocates for adopting either a libertarian or a distributive position about communication policies and free speech values, this Article suggests an ideologically-neutral, fact-based examination for evaluating the various sources of legitimacy with regard to both “old” and “new” media regulation. The first Part of the Article begins by adopting a sociohistorical perspective to taxonomize consensual sources for legitimizing media regulation within the public interest framework. By unraveling these various rationales and justifications, it further examines the sources’ theoretical and practical applicability to contemporary debates about the constitutional permissibility of regulating internet-based content providers and platforms. The second Part suggests that, although both utilitarian-economic and egalitarian-democratic justifications for traditional media regulation can generally apply to new forms of commercial media, free speech jurisprudence lacks sufficient consensus about the conditions for the legitimacy of such regulation, as it suffers from two primary flaws: (a) lack of rationality or basis in social facts; and (b) lack of sensitivity to the hidden constitutional costs of media regulation within the public interest framework. The third Part of the Article offers a consensual framework for bridging today’s ideological divides—over media regulation and free speech jurisprudence alike—by suggesting common ground for evaluating the legitimacy of media law and policy, which both libertarian and egalitarian ends of the liberal-democratic spectrum can support

Convergence and Australian content: The importance of access

In the light of new and complex challenges to media policy and regulation, the Austrlaian government commissioned the Convergence Review in late 2010 to assess the continuing applicability and utility of the principles and objectives that have shaped the policy framework to this point. It proposed a range of options for policy change and identified three enduring priorities for continued media regulation: media ownership and control; content standards; and Australian content production and distribution. The purpose of this article is to highlight an area where we feel there are opportunities for further discussion and research: the question of how the accessibility and visibility of Australian and local content may be assured in the future media policy framework via a combination of regulation and incentives to encourage innovation in content distribution