The existential stakes of platform governance: a critical literature review

Abstract

This study introduces a comprehensive overview of literature concerning the concepts of regulation and governance, and attempts to connect them to scholarly works that deal with the governance of and by social media platforms. The paper provides fundamental definitions of regulation and governance, along with a critique of polycentricity or multi-stakeholderism, in order to contextualise the discussion around platform governance and, subsequently, online content regulation. Moreover, where traditional governance literature conceptualised stakeholders as a triangle, this article proposes going beyond the triad of public, private and non-governmental actors, to account for previously invisible stakeholder clusters, like citizens and news media organisations. This paper also contends that, while platform governance is an important field of study and practice, the way it has been structured and investigated so far, is posing an existential risk to the broader internet governance structure, primarily, because of the danger of conflating the internet with platforms. As a result, there exists a timely need to reimagine the way in which we understand and study phenomena related to platform governance by adjusting our conceptual and analytical heuristics. So, this article wishes to expand the theorisation of this field in order to better engage with complicated platform governance issues, like the development of regulatory frameworks concerning online content regulation.

New School Speech Regulation and Online Hate Speech: A Case Study of Germany's NetzDG

“…As Balkin notes, this collapses some relevant distinctions; for an expanded version seePapaevangelou (2021).…”

The role of citizens in platform governance: A case study on public consultations regarding online content regulation in the European Union

“…Relevant scholarship has also attempted to identify stakeholders based on political science and international relations studies, as well as on the products (e.g., regulatory frameworks) of these power relations (Papaevangelou 2021). Recent works have also criticised current conceptual frameworks for not being able to account for the underlying "inter-capitalist competition" among stakeholders (Flew and Wilding 2021, 129) and for nuances that are visible only to close readings of governance processes (Papaevangelou, 2021).…”

“…Relevant scholarship has also attempted to identify stakeholders based on political science and international relations studies, as well as on the products (e.g., regulatory frameworks) of these power relations (Papaevangelou 2021). Recent works have also criticised current conceptual frameworks for not being able to account for the underlying "inter-capitalist competition" among stakeholders (Flew and Wilding 2021, 129) and for nuances that are visible only to close readings of governance processes (Papaevangelou, 2021). In a recent essay, Gorwa attempted to further clarify and expound on his previous work by defining stakeholders as "actors with a stake in the processes of platform governance" without "necessarily [acting] on it [as] all individuals affected (or governed) by the outcome of a policy process are stakeholders" (Gorwa 2022, 8).…”

“…Relevant scholarship has attempted to identify these stakeholders based on concepts borrowed from political science and international relations studies, as well as by analysing the products (e.g. regulatory frameworks) of these power relations (Papaevangelou, 2021). For instance, Abbott and Snidal proposed the ‘governance triangle’: a ‘heuristic device to structure analysis of widely varying forms of governance’ (Abbott & Snidal, 2009, p. 52), with NGO, state and firm actors as the principal governance stakeholders.…”

“…Subsequently, it is implied that platform governance can promote an inclusive and participatory environment, given that it is a system of de facto networked governance and, thus, there is a constant interplay of state and non-state (Drahos & Krygier, 2017, p. 15), as well as of human and non-human actors. Recent works have criticised current conceptual frameworks for not being able to account for the underlying ‘inter-capitalist competition’ among stakeholders (Flew & Wilding, 2021, p. 129) and for nuances that are visible only to close readings of governance processes (Papaevangelou, 2021). At the same time, the research agenda of platform governance is constantly negotiated among the scholarly community, with many academics pushing for its ‘reimagination’ despite its relative novelty.…”