Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Since the ruling of the European Court of Justice, the right to be forgotten has provided more informational self-determination to users, whilst raising new questions around Google’s role as arbiter of online content and the power to rewrite history. We investigated the debate that unfolded on Twitter around the #righttobeforgotten through social network analysis. The results revealed that latent topics, namely Google’s role as authority, alternated in popularity with rising and fading flare topics. The public sphere, or Öffentlichkeit, that we observed resembles the traditional one, with elite players such as news portals, experts and corporations participating, but it also differs significantly in terms of the underlying mechanisms and means of information diffusion. Experts are critical to comment, relay and make sense of information. We discuss the implications for theories of the public sphere and examine why social media do not serve as a democratising tool for ordinary citizens.

Keywords

European Union Google right to be forgotten social network analysis Twitter

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ambrose

(2012) It’s about time: privacy, information lifecycles, and the right to be forgotten. Stanford Technology Law Review 16: 369–422.

Anderson

(2008) The end of theory: the data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Wired. Available at: http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory (accessed 3 August 2015).

Ansolabehere

Hersh

(2012) Validation: what big data reveal about survey misreporting and the real electorate. Political Analysis 20(4): 437–459.

Art. 29 WP (2014) Guidelines on the Implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on ‘Google Spain and Inc v. agencia española de protección de datos (aepd) and mario costeja gonzález’ c-131/12. Brussels: European Commission.

Ausloos

(2012) The ‘right to be forgotten’ – worth remembering? Computer Law & Security Report 28(2): 143–152.

Bishop

(2007) Increasing participation in online communities: a framework for human–computer interaction. Computers in Human Behavior 23(4): 1881–1893.

Boguslaw

Westin

(1968) Privacy and freedom. American Sociological Review 33(1): 173.

boyd

Crawford

(2012) Critical questions for big data: provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society 15(5): 662–679.

Brundidge

(2010) Encountering ‘difference’ in the contemporary public sphere: the contribution of the internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication 60(4): 680–700.

10.

Bruns

Highfield

(2016) Is Habermas on Twitter? Social media and the public sphere. In: Bruns

Enli

Skogerbø

et al . (eds) The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics. New York: Routledge, pp. 98–130.

11.

Burt

(1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

12.

Castellano

(2012) The right to be forgotten under European law: a constitutional debate. Lex Electronica 16(1): 1.

13.

Cherven

(2015) Mastering Gephi Network Visualization. 1st ed. Birmingham: Packt Publishing.

14.

Clayton

(2013) Yandex overtakes Bing as world’s fourth search engine. The Wall Street Journal. Available at: http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2013/02/11/yandex-overtakes-bing-as-worlds-fourth-search-engine/ (accessed 24 October 2015).

15.

Coleman

Moré

(1983) Estimation of sparse Jacobian matrices and graph coloring blems. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 20(1): 187–209.

16.

Colleoni

Rozza

Arvidsson

(2014) Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication 64(2): 317–332.

17.

Conover

Ratkiewicz

Francisco

et al . (2011) Political polarization on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the fifth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM), Barcelona, Spain, 17–21 July, pp. 89–96. Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.

18.

Dahlgren

(2005) The internet, public spheres, and political communication: dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication 22(2): 147–162.

19.

Doyle

(2015) Russia’s ‘right to be forgotten’ and China’s right to be protected: new privacy and security legislation. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology Digest. Available at: http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/legislation/russias-right-to-be-forgotten-and-chinas-right-to-be-protected-new-privacy-and-security-legislation (accessed 18 May 2016).

20.

European Commission (2012) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (General Data Protection Regulation). Brussels: European Commission.

21.

European Court of Justice (ECoJ) (2014) Case no. c-131/12-Google Spain and Google. Available at: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclang=EN&docid=152065

22.

European Parliament (2016) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons With Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Brussels, Belgium. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/reform/files/regulation_oj_en.pdf (accessed 18 May 2016).

23.

Garrett

Resnick

(2011) Resisting political fragmentation on the internet. Daedalus 140(4): 108–120.

24.

Gilbert

(2015) The right of erasure or right to be forgotten: what the recent laws, cases, and guidelines mean for global companies. Journal of Internet Law 18(8): 1–20.

25.

GlobalVoices (2015a) How safe are internet search engines from Russian censorship? Available at: https://advox.globalvoices.org/2015/06/01/how-safe-are-internet-search-engines-from-russian-censorship/ (accessed 17 February 2016).

26.

GlobalVoices (2015b) Russia moves forward on ‘right to be forgotten’ bill despite industry protests. Available at: https://globalvoices.org/2015/06/11/russia-right-to-be-forgotten-industry-protests/ (accessed 26 February 2016).

27.

Google Inc. (2015) Alphabet code of conduct. Available at: https://investor.google.com/corporate/code-of-conduct.html (accessed 31 October 2015).

28.

Greenhow

Gleason

(2012) Twitteracy: tweeting as a new literacy practice. The Educational Forum 76(4): 464–478.

29.

Gruzd

Mai

Kampen

(forthcoming) A how-to for using Netlytic to collect and analyze social media data: a case study of the Twitter use during the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution in Ukraine. In: Sloan

Quan-Haase

(eds) Handbook of Social Media Research Methods. London: SAGE.

30.

Habermas

(2006) Political communication in media society: does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory 16(4): 411–426.

31.

Heider

(1958) The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. 1st ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

32.

Hogan

Quan-Haase

(2010) Persistence and change in social media. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 30(5): 309–315.

33.

Korenhof

Ausloos

Szekely

et al . (2014) Timing the right to be forgotten: a study into ‘time’ as a factor in deciding about retention or erasure of data. SSRN Electronic Journal.

34.

Mayer-Schönberger

(2009) Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. 1st ed. Woodstock: Princeton University Press.

35.

Meraz

(2009) Is there an elite hold? Traditional media to social media agenda setting influence in blog networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14(3): 682–707.

36.

Merton

(1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.

37.

Monroe

Pan

Roberts

et al . (2015) No! Formal theory, causal inference, and big data are not contradictory trends in political science. PS: Political Science & Politics 48(1): 71–74.

38.

Newman

MEJ

(2006) Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103(23): 8577–8582.

39.

Novotny

Spiekermann

(2014) Oblivion on the web: an inquiry of user needs. In: Proceedings of the 22nd European conference on information systems (ECIS), Tel Aviv, Israel, 9–11 June.

40.

Pariser

(2011) The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. 1st ed. New York: Penguin Press.

41.

Quan-Haase

McCay-Peet

(forthcoming) Social network analysis. In: Bruhn

Craig

(eds) International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Willey.

42.

Quan-Haase

Wellman

(2005) Hyperconnected net work: computer-mediated community in a high-tech organization. In: Heckscher

Adler

(eds) Collaborative Community in Business and Society. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 281–333.

43.

Rogers

(1962) Diffusion of Innovations. 1st ed. New York: The Free Press.

44.

Rosen

(2012) The right to be forgotten. Stanford Law Review 64(88): 5.

45.

Rosoff

(2014) Here’s how dominant Google is in Europe. Business Insider. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-dominant-google-is-in-europe-2014-11?IR=T (accessed 2 March 2016).

46.

Schechner

(2015) Squabbling over Google’s ‘right to be forgotten’ continues one year on. The Wall Street Journal. Available at: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/05/13/google-regulators-spar-over-applying-forgotten-right-globally/ (accessed 15 February 2016).

47.

Shaftan

(2015) Russia signs controversial ‘right to be forgotten’ bill into law. Data Protection Report. Available at: http://www.dataprotectionreport.com/2015/07/russia-signs-controversial-right-to-be-forgotten-bill-into-law/ (accessed 31 October 2015).

48.

Shoor

(2014) Narrowing the right to be forgotten: why the European Union needs to amend the proposed data protection regulation. Brooklyn Journal of International Law 39(1): 487–519.

49.

Statista (2015) Worldwide Market Share of Leading Search Engines from January 2010 to July 2015. Available at http://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/ (accessed 18 May 2016).

50.

Statt

(2015) French regulator says Google must expand ‘right to be forgotten’ to all Google sites. The Verge, 21 September. Available at: http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/21/9365075/french-regulator-google-right-to-be-forgotten (accessed 18 May 2016).

51.

Tippmann

Powles

(2015) Google accidentally reveals data on ‘right to be forgotten’ requests. The Guardian, 14 July. Availabe at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/14/google-accidentally-reveals-right-to-be-forgotten-requests (accessed 18 May 2016).

52.

Webster

(2006) Theories of the Information Society. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.

53.

Yang

(2015) Why are people so naïve? Long-term motivation in online reputation management: a grounded theory study. In: Proceedings of the 21st Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS 2015), Fajardo, Puerto Rico, 13–15 August.

54.

Yang

(2016) Understanding the pain: examining individuals’ online reputation management behaviour and its obstacles – a grounded theory. In: Proceedings of the 49th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), Kauai, HI, USA, 5–8 January, pp. 3898–3907. New York: IEEE.

55.

Yang

Albers

(2013) Overcoming information overload in online reputation management: a systematic literature review. In: Proceedings of the 21st European conference on information systems (ECIS 2013), Utrecht, Netherlands, 5–8 June.

The changing public sphere on Twitter: Network structure,elites and topics of the #righttobeforgotten

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References