This article proposes to start considering the role that citizens play in platform governance as a way of critically reflecting on issues of inclusivity in and effectiveness of current decision-making processes. This article attempts to apply the above suggestion by studying citizens’ discourse in recent European efforts to regulate online content. It does so by employing an experimental methodology, namely, a computationally assisted Critical Discourse Analysis on textual data derived from citizens’ contributions to the European Commission’s Public Consultations on three crucial regulatory texts: the Code of Practice on Disinformation, the Recommendation on Tackling Illegal Content Online and the Digital Services Act. The present analysis suggests that the EU’s strategy to advance participatory governance through public consultations seems to ignore citizens’ qualitative input and, thus, the feedback received can be severely limited. Concluding, the article maintains that scholarship should adopt a more encompassing scope when studying platform governance, especially concerning citizen and user participation, beyond the traditional frame of participation through civil society representation, while critically scrutinising existing ostensibly participatory structures.
AbbottK. W.SnidalD. (2009). The governance triangle: Regulatory standards institutions and the shadow of the state. In The politics of global regulation (pp. 44–88). Princeton University Press.
BeyersJ.ArrasS. (2020). Who feeds information to regulators? Stakeholder diversity in European Union regulatory agency consultations. Journal of Public Policy, 40(4), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X19000126
BradfordA.PosnerE. A. (2011). Universal Exceptionalism in International Law. Harvard International Law Journal, 52(1). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1551355
CaoY. (2020). Regulating digital platforms in China: Current practice and future developments. Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 11(3–4), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpaa001
11.
ChanN. K.KwokC. (2022). The politics of platform power in surveillance capitalism: A comparative case study of ride-hailing platforms in China and the United States. Global Media and China, 7(2), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/20594364211046769
12.
ChavesM. M. N.dos SantosA. P. R.dos SantosaN. P.LaroccaL. M. (2017). Use of the software IRAMUTEQ in qualitative research: An experience report. In CostaA.ReisL.Neri de SousaF.MoreiraA.LamasD. (Eds.), Computer Supported Qualitative Research (pp. 39–48). Springer International Publishing (Studies in Systems, Decision and Control). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43271-7_4
13.
CrawfordK.GillespieT. (2016). What is a flag for? Social media reporting tools and the vocabulary of complaint. New Media and Society, 18(3), 410–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814543163
14.
de KloetJ.PoellT.GuohuaZ.Yiu FaiC. (2019). The platformization of Chinese society: Infrastructure, governance, and practice. Chinese Journal of Communication, 12(3), 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2019.1644008
15.
DeligiaouriA.SuiterJ. (2020). Evaluation of public consultations and citizens’ participation in 2015 better regulation agenda of the EU and the need for a deliberative e-rulemaking initiative in the EU. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 22(1), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2020.1718285
16.
DrahosP.KrygierM. (2017). Regulation, institutions and networks. In DrahosP. (Ed.), Regulatory Theory (1st ed., pp. 1–22). ANU Press. https://doi.org/10.22459/RT.02.2017.01
EC (2018a). Commission recommendation (EU) 2018/334 of 1 March 2018 on measures to effectively tackle illegal content online, OJ L. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reco/2018/334/oj/eng (Accessed 31 August 2022).
EC (2020a). Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council on a single market for digital services (digital services act) and amending directive 2000/31/EC, COM. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020PC0825 (Accessed 31 August 2022).
EileenC.KirstyP.TrudyF.CharisP.AlexC.JaneS. (2021). CovidCheck: Assessing the implentation of EU code of practice on disinformation in relation to covid-19. DCU Institute of Future Media, Democracy and Society and Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. https://fujomedia.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Code2021_COVIDCheck.pdf (Accessed 1 September 2022).
27.
EPEUCO (2001). Directive 2001/29/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJL. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2001/29/oj/eng (Accessed 1 September 2022).
FlewT.MartinF.SuzorN. (2019). Internet regulation as media policy: Rethinking the question of digital communication platform governance. Journal of Digital Media and Policy, 10(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1386/jdmp.10.1.33_1
30.
FlewT.WildingD. (2021). The turn to regulation in digital communication: the ACCC’s digital platforms inquiry and Australian media policy. Media, Culture & Society, 43(1), 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720926044
31.
FlyvbjergB (1998). Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for Civil Society?The British Journal of Sociology, 49(2), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/591310
32.
GillespieT. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
33.
GorwaR. (2019a). The platform governance triangle: conceptualising the informal regulation of online content. Internet Policy Review, 8(2), 22. https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1407
HabermasJ. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. The MIT Press.
37.
HabermasJ. (2022). Reflections and hypotheses on a further structural transformation of the political public sphere. Theory, Culture and Society, 39(4), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221112341
38.
HeldtA. (2022). EU digital services act: The white hope of intermediary regulation. In FlewT.MartinF. (Eds.), Digital Platform Regulation (pp. 69–84). Springer International Publishing (Palgrave Global Media Policy and Business). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95220-4_4
39.
JosefaF. (2022). ‘Social media councils: An effective means of holding digital platforms accountable?’. Digital Society Blog, 29 September. https://www.hiig.de/en/social-media-councils/
40.
Kohler-KochB. (2010). Civil society and EU democracy: “astroturf” representation?Journal of European Public Policy, 17(1), 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760903464986
41.
LeerssenP. (2021). ‘Platform research access in article 31 of the digital services act’. Verfassungsblog, 7 September. https://verfassungsblog.de/power-dsa-dma-14/ (Accessed 28 April 2022).
42.
MansellR.SteinmuellerW. E. (2020). Advanced introduction to platform economics. Edward Elgar Publishing (Elgar advanced introductions).
43.
MckuneSShazedaA (2018). The Contestation and Shaping of Cyber Norms Through China’s Internet Sovereignty Agenda. International Journal of Communication, 12(21), 3835–3855. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/8540
44.
MogashoaT. (2014). Understanding critical discourse analysis in qualitative research. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education, 1(7), 104–113.
PeräkyläA.RuusuvuoriJ. (2018). Analyzing talk and text. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1163–1201). SAGE Publications Ltd.
RamosM. G.do Rosário LimaV. M.Amaral-RosaM. P. (2019). IRAMUTEQ software and discursive textual analysis: Interpretive possibilities. In CostaA. P.ReisL. P.MoreiraA. (Eds.), Computer supported qualitative research (pp. 58–72). Springer International Publishing (Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01406-3_6
49.
RatinaudP. (2009). ‘Iramuteq: Interface de R pour les analyses multidimensionnelles de textes et de questionnaires’. LERASS. http://www.iramuteq.org
50.
RegilmeSSF (2018). Habermasian Thinking on Civil Society and the Public Sphere in the Age of Globalization. Perspectives on Political Science, 47(4), 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2016.1175805
51.
SaurweinF.Spencer-SmithC. (2020). Combating disinformation on social media: Multilevel governance and distributed accountability in Europe. Digital Journalism, 8(6), 820–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1765401
52.
SeeligerM.SevignaniS. (2022). A new structural transformation of the public sphere? An introduction. Theory, Culture and Society, 39(4), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221109439
53.
ShattockE. (2021). Self-regulation 2:0? A critical reflection of the European fight against disinformation. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-73
StaabP.ThielT. (2022). Social media and the digital structural transformation of the public sphere. Theory, Culture and Society, 39(4), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221103527
van DijckJ. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society, 31(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443708098245
61.
Van DijckJ. (2021). Seeing the forest for the trees: Visualizing platformization and its governance. New Media and Society, 23(9), 2801–2819. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820940293
van DijckJ.LinJ. (2022). Deplatformization, platform governance and global geopolitics: Interview with José van Dijck. Communication and the Public, 7(2), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/20570473221102199
64.
van DijckJ.PoellT.de WaalM. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.
65.
WagnerB.KüblerJ.PírkováE.GsengerR.FerroC. (2021). Reimagining content moderation and safeguarding fundamental rights: A study on community-led platforms. The Greens/EFA.
