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.
AbbottKWLevi-FaurDSnidalD (2017) Theorizing regulatory intermediaries: the RIT model. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science670(1): 14–35.
2.
AyersIBraithwaiteJ (1992) Responsive Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
BaldwinRCaveMLodgeM (2011) Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
BalkinJM (2014) Old-school/new-school speech regulation. Harvard Law Review127(8): 2296–2342.
5.
BeachDPedersenRB (2016) Causal Case Study Methods: Foundations and Guidelines for Comparing, Matching, and Tracing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
BlackJ (1996) Constitutionalising self-regulation. The Modern Law Review59: 24–55.
9.
BrèsLMenaSSalles-DjelicML (2019) Exploring the formal and informal roles of regulatory intermediaries in transnational multistakeholder regulation. Regulation & Governance13(2): 127–140.
European Commission (2017) Antitrust: commission fines Google ¢2.42 billion for abusing dominance as search engine by giving illegal advantage to own comparison shopping service. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1784_en.htm
GiladS (2010) It runs in the family: meta-regulation and its siblings. Regulation & Governance4(4): 485–506.
17.
GillespieT (2017) Regulation of and by platforms. In: BurgessJPoellTMarwickA (eds) SAGE Handbook of Social Media. London: SAGE, pp. 254–278.
18.
GillespieT (2018) Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19.
GraboskyP (2013) Beyond responsive regulation: the expanding role of non-state actors in the regulatory process. Regulation & Governance7(1): 114–123.
HauflerV (2001) A Public Role for the Private Sector: Industry Self-Regulation in a Global Economy. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
22.
HofmannJKatzenbachCGollatzK (2017) Between coordination and regulation: finding the governance in Internet governance. New Media & Society19(9): 1406–1423.
23.
House of Commons, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (2018) Disinformation and “Fake News”: Final Report. London: House of Commons.
KlonickK (2016) The new governors: the people, rules, and processes governing online speech. Harvard Law Review131(6): 1598–1670.
27.
LatzerMJustNSaurweinF (2013) Self- and co-regulation: evidence, legitimacy and governance choice. In: PriceMEVerhulstSGMorganL (eds) Routledge Handbook of Media Law. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 373–397.
28.
LatzerMPriceMESaurweinF, et al. (2007) Comparative Analysis of International Co- and Self-Regulation in Communications MarketsResearch report commissioned by Ofcom—UK Office of Communications. Vienna: ITA.
29.
Levi-FaurD (2005) The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science598(1): 12–32.
30.
MarquesJC (2019) Private regulatory capture via harmonization: an analysis of global retailer regulatory intermediaries. Regulation & Governance13(2): 157–176.
31.
MillerG (2000) Credible commitment and efficiency in the design of public agencies. JPART: Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory10(2): 289–327.
NahonK (2015) Where there is social media there is politics. In: BrunsASkogerboEChristensenCLarssonOAEnliGS (eds) The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics. New York: Routledge, pp. 39–55.
34.
NorthDC (1993) Institutions and credible commitment. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) / Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft149(1): 11–23.
35.
OgusA (1995) Rethinking self-regulation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies15: 97–108.
36.
PorterTRonitK (2006) Self-regulation as policy process: the multiple and criss-crossing stages of private rule-making. Policy Sciences39(1): 41–72.
37.
PuppisM (2010) Media governance: a new concept for the analysis of media policy and regulation. Communication, Culture, and Critique3(2): 134–149.
SchneiderASchererAG (2019) State governance beyond the “shadow of hierarchy”: a social mechanisms perspective on governmental CSR policies. Organization Studies40(8): 1147–1168.
United Nations Human Rights Council (2018) Report of the Independent Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar. Geneva: United Nations.
49.
Van den BulckH (2013) Tracing media policy decisions: of stakeholders, networks and advocacy coalitions. In: PriceMEVerhulstSGMorganL (eds) Routledge Handbook of Media Law. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 32–49.
