When Trust Fades, Facebook Is No Longer a Friend: Shifting Privatisation Dynamics in the Context of Cybersecurity as a Result of Disinformation, Populism and Political Uncertainty

Carrapiço, Helena Farrand; Farrand, Benjamin

doi:10.1111/jcms.13175

Cited by 15 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, after all the steps taken by the platforms based on the Code of Practice, the desired result was not achieved. It was stated by the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security that measures taken by platforms were far from being effective (Carrapico & Farrand, 2021). An activist group, Avaaz, mentioned that there is still a great number of groups and pages on Facebook which post information against European Union and which are being followed by an excessive number of people (Shackelford et al, 2020(Shackelford et al, , p. 1788.…”

Section: The Efficiency Of the Code And Reports Of Major Platformsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Normativity in the EU’s Approach towards Disinformation

Kobernjuk

Kasper

2021

TalTech Journal of European Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the rapid growth of disinformation, two major steps were taken to battle the phenomenon in the online environment—first on the global level, and second on the European Union level. The first step is the Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and “Fake News”, Disinformation and Propaganda, which provides a general overview of possible actions to be taken to fight disinformation, and how “things should be”. The steps are connected to following human rights standards, promoting the diversity of media, and paying special attention to intermediaries and media outlets. The second one is the Code of Practice on Disinformation, which is a self-regulatory document that can be voluntarily signed by major social media platforms and advertising bodies, and its main focus is making political advertising coherent and clear, preventing the creation of fake accounts, providing users with tools to report disinformation, and promote further research. Nevertheless, based on the reports and criticism from stakeholders, the Code of Practice has not reached a common ground regarding definitions, it has provided no mechanism to access the development, and has had several other drawbacks which need additional attention and discussion. The article is devoted to identifying gaps in the Code of Practice on Disinformation based on the reports and criticism provided by the stakeholders and elaborating on possible practices to regulate the legal issues raised by disinformation on the European Union level. We use doctrinal and comparative methods in the work. The doctrinal method targets the cluster that was identified in order to analyze the Code of Practice, identifies weak spots and inconsistencies, and offers solutions from different areas of law. The comparative method was selected since in several areas of law, such as human rights and consumer protection law, the previously identified approaches will be addressed to find the best outcomes. This combination of methods allows an in-depth understanding of legal documents and identifying successful solutions, which can influence further development based on efficient examples.

show abstract

Section: The Efficiency Of the Code And Reports Of Major Platformsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Normativity in the EU’s Approach towards Disinformation

Kobernjuk

Kasper

2021

TalTech Journal of European Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, digital technologies change the nature of uncertainties by making processes less bound and outcomes more unpredictable (Nambisan et al, 2019; Schroeder, 2021). Using artificial intelligence gives rise to algorithmic biases affecting product or process performance (Schroeder, 2021) and cybersecurity uncertainties (Carrapico & Farrand, 2021). Therefore, the distinct challenges associated with DT often compel organizations to improve their ability to deal with uncertainty (Nambisan, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Entrepreneurial judgment governance adaptation for digital transformation in established firms

Gomes,

Flechas,

Facin

et al. 2023

Strategic Entrepreneurship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research SummaryWe contend that entrepreneurial judgment governance (EJG) is a profound yet poorly understood process in which firms sense, seize, and transform opportunities related to digital transformation. Grounded in a rich, multi‐case study of six large incumbent firms, we conceptualize and examine how firms change EJG through three phases: recognizing, distributing, and orchestrating. We find that EJG adaptation is at the heart of why some firms succeed in responding to the challenges associated with digital transformation while others fail. Implications and opportunities for future research are discussed.Managerial SummaryEntrepreneurial judgment governance (EJG) is central to explaining why some firms succeed in digital transformation (DT) whereas others do not. EJG determines who has the right to exercise entrepreneurial judgment (EJ) about allocating and using resources to address new opportunities. As distinct types of uncertainties require distinct EJ features, established firms face the challenge of EJG adaptation to the unique DT uncertainties. Based on a multiple‐case study, we offer a three‐stage framework that facilitates and expedites EJG adaptation to DT. Furthermore, our study highlights that strategic leaders who fail to comprehend the need for changes in EJG, neglect to establish an EJG architecture aligned with DT goals or overlook implementing necessary adjustments internally and externally, may hinder positive DT outcomes.

show abstract

Hate Speech, Fake News, and the Moderation Problem

Jougleux

2022

Facebook and the (EU) Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When Trust Fades, Facebook Is No Longer a Friend: Shifting Privatisation Dynamics in the Context of Cybersecurity as a Result of Disinformation, Populism and Political Uncertainty

Cited by 15 publications

References 43 publications

Normativity in the EU’s Approach towards Disinformation

Normativity in the EU’s Approach towards Disinformation

Entrepreneurial judgment governance adaptation for digital transformation in established firms

Hate Speech, Fake News, and the Moderation Problem

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About