Volume 48, Issue 3 - Special Issue: Digital platforms, regulation and governance. Policy challenges from algorithmic business practices Guest Editors: Tales Tomaz and Josef Trappel

This study examines how Meta as a company of various social media platforms communicates the disinformation crisis. Social media platforms are seen as a breeding ground for disinformation, and companies like Meta risk not only suffering reputational damage but also being further regulated by national and international legislation. We consider in this paper the news stories that Meta posted on the topic of disinformation on its own website between 2016 and 2022 as crisis communication, and build on insights from this domain that discuss some key response strategies. In this way, we conclude that Meta’s communication can be seen as crisis communication, and that it uses strategies such as addressing different stakeholders, sticking to key messages when discussing the interventions, and holding itself responsible for finding a solution rather than for the problem of disinformation itself. These insights contribute to understanding how Meta seeks to validate its legitimacy during this ongoing crisis, and how it engages in self-regulation.

Artificial intelligence and automation have become pervasive in news media, influencing journalism from news gathering to news distribution. As algorithms are increasingly determining editorial decisions, specific concerns have been raised with regard to the responsible and accountable use of AI-driven tools by news media, encompassing new regulatory and ethical questions. This contribution aims to analyze whether and to what extent the use of AI technology in news media and journalism is currently regulated and debated within the European Union and the Council of Europe. Through a document analysis of official policy documents, combined with a data mining approach and an inductive thematic analysis, the study looks at how news media are dealt with, in particular regarding their responsibilities towards their users and society. The findings show that regulatory frameworks about AI rarely include media, but if they do, they associate them with issues such as disinformation, data, and AI literacy, as well as diversity, plurality, and social responsibility.

This paper analyzes the internet policy discourse regarding the German Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) in different media settings. We examine the conversation about this highly controversial anti-hate speech law on IT blogs, websites, and in daily German newspapers. We compare the positions brought forward in these different media environments concerning one of the most important topics within the discussion about the NetzDG, specifically the question of whether or not the law will result in censorship, limiting users’ freedom of expression. We employ pretrained transformer-based language models to detect and quantify recurring arguments in the debate.

The key role played by online platforms in the neo-intermediation of the public debate requires a review of current tools for mapping the digital information ecosystem, highlighting the political nature of such an analysis: Starting from a synoptic overview of the main models of platform governance, we try to understand whether the ongoing European shift towards the Limited Government Regulation (LGR) model will be able to counterbalance the “systemic opinion power” of the giant platforms and restore the “health” of the digital information ecosystem. A close analysis of the European Digital Services Act (DSA) has highlighted some limitations in achieving its goals, because of the features of the LGR on the one hand, and the disruptive features of the algorithmic neo-intermediation phenomenon on the other. Thus, we suggest a tripartite regulatory model, that can be defined as “neo-editorial accountability.” However, increasing users’ critical algorithmic awareness is an essential prerequisite for implementing the suggested template, and mitigating an outstanding effect of the LGR model: the normalization of the ideological assumptions underlying informational capitalism.

Taken at face value the introduction in 2021 of Australia’s News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code (“the Code”) may appear “world leading,” innovative, and, in general, a productive and strategic intervention to reverse the decline of public interest journalism. It is claimed that in the Australian news industry context, an annual transfer of around $200 million between two platform companies – Google and Meta – and news businesses has now been put in place (Sims, 2022). All major news media companies in Australia, if not smaller more independent ones, have greatly benefitted from the new Code, and anecdotally it appears that the funding has resulted in the creation of significant numbers of new journalists being hired. Yet the exact investment destination and ultimate beneficiaries of the funding are not known beyond the corporate walls of the recipients. The article points to the transparency and sustainability problems inherent to the new Code, arguing that an alternative approach to funding public interest journalism might be a levy funded by the platforms.