Search

Despite opaque automated systems and few formal channels for participation, YouTubers navigate algorithmic governance on the platform through a strategy we call user-generated accountability: the generation of publicity via content creation to reveal failures, oversights, or harmful policies. Through an analysis of 250 videos, we identify common strategies, concerns, and targets of accountability. Creators primarily upload vlogs that acknowledge the platform's positive aspects, even as they express concern with YouTube's policies, automated enforcement systems, poor communication practices, and discrimination against certain creators or content. In publicizing critiques of platform operations, videos enroll creators and audiences as active stakeholders in platform governance that can coordinate actions to draw the company's attention to matters of concern. We argue that user-generated accountability practices offer a productive starting point for understanding how platform governance disputes come to be and how systems might be shaped or rebuilt to better serve the needs of competing stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much scholarship across the humanities and social sciences seek to shed light on the intersection of far-right politics and social media platforms. Yet, scholars tend to focus on racist actors and the ideological underpinnings of platform policies while the contingencies that shape the experiences of content reviewers who make decisions about racist content remain underexamined. This article fills this gap by exploring such contingencies from a linguistic anthropological perspective. Drawing on Facebook moderators' stories, I illustrate the factors adjacent to, and beyond, ideology that animate the adjudication of racist hate speech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Who governs—and who should govern—online communication? Social media companies, international organizations, users, or the state? And by what means? A range of rhetorical devices have been used to simplify the complexities associated with the governance of online platforms. This includes "constitutional metaphors": metaphorical allusions to traditional political concepts such as statehood, democracy, and constitutionalism. Here, we empirically trace the ascent of a powerful constitutional metaphor currently employed in the news media discourse on platform governance: characterizations of Facebook's Oversight Board (OB) as a "supreme court." We investigate the metaphor's descriptive suitability and question its normative and political ramifications. We argue that uncritical characterizations of the OB as Facebook's "supreme court" obscure its true scope and purpose. In addition, we argue that appropriating the socio-cultural symbolism and hence political legitimacy of a supreme court and mapping it onto a different type of actor poses a threat to responsible platform governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On December 3, 2018, Tumblr announced that it would ban sexually explicit content from the platform, drawing immediate backlash from users. The ensuing discord on the site is conceptualized here as contested platform governance, or a conflict between users and ownership, in which not only are a platform's policies and features challenged, but also its core values, identity, and/or purposes are put into question. By examining 238 Tumblr posts, this analysis identifies the unique ways users combatted the ban and (re)inscribed community values, while also contesting the owners' legitimacy to govern the platform. Holding implications for the site's long-term survival, such conflicts capture a critical moment in which the boundaries of power between users and ownership are challenged and, possibly, transformed. By examining Tumblr's Not Safe For Work (NSFW) ban through the lens of platform governance, this study offers insight into how power and its limits are negotiated online. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Content regulation on digital platforms has become a contested issue on the public and scholarly agendas. To understand how digital platform providers experiment with making commitments regarding their regulation, this article process-traces Facebook's content regulation to ask how it self-regulates despite constant pressures for policy intervention. The first part of the article shows how Facebook moved from its initial "thin" self-regulatory regime toward what I call "enhanced self-regulation," which relies on first-party and independent third-party intermediaries. Thereafter, I show how Facebook self-regulated the balance between public and private interests over time and across the regimes. The findings suggest that powerful actors such as Facebook can innovate in self-regulation by reallocating content-related responsibilities to intermediaries and subsequently create polycentric governance regimes. Lessons about how self-regulators that face public criticism can make more credible commitments to public interests are then drawn from the strengths and weakness of enhanced self-regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With platforms accounting for 1–3% of paid work in advanced economies, discussions on their impact on labor are proliferating. Focusing on commercial platforms providing intermediation to a workforce available on-demand, we further systematize the field by approaching platform-mediated work through the lens of (in)visibility. We map four basic forms of platform-mediated work against three variations of (in)visibility: (1) perceptible, (2) institutional, and (3) individual, and discuss the implications through the stories of three protagonists of platform workers. The suggested meta-analysis tool for understanding the mechanism of rendering platform workers obscure exposes who is recognized as a worker, what is recognized as work, and how these questions are negotiated in a platform-mediated digital space. As such, the framework provides a joint space for the discussions of the core issues of the field—from regulation and uncertainties of platform employment, through exacerbating vulnerabilities of workers, to surveillance and self-governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the context of recent controversies surrounding the censorship of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer online content, specifically on YouTube and Tumblr, we interrogate the relationship between normative understandings of sexual citizenship and the content classification regimes. We argue that these content classification systems and the platforms' responses to public criticism both operate as norm-producing technologies, in which the complexities of sexuality and desire are obscured in order to cultivate notions of a 'good' lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer sexual citizen. However, despite normative work of classification seeking to distinguish between sexuality and sex, we argue that the high-profile failures of these classification systems create the conditions for users to draw attention to, rather than firm, these messy boundaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Models for understanding and holding systems accountable have long rested upon ideals and logics of transparency. Being able to see a system is sometimes equated with being able to know how it works and govern it—a pattern that recurs in recent work about transparency and computational systems. But can “black boxes’ ever be opened, and if so, would that ever be sufficient? In this article, we critically interrogate the ideal of transparency, trace some of its roots in scientific and sociotechnical epistemological cultures, and present 10 limitations to its application. We specifically focus on the inadequacy of transparency for understanding and governing algorithmic systems and sketch an alternative typology of algorithmic accountability grounded in constructive engagements with the limitations of transparency ideals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]