English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Due to their political power, the largest social media platforms are often compared to governments. Consequently, their unaccountability to the public has prompted widespread concern. This article examines two prominent responses in academic and policy debates, here characterised as the  multistakeholderist  and  rule of law  responses. The former aims to increase civil society influence in platform governance. The latter argues platforms should follow similar rule of law principles to public institutions. Neither response offers meaningful democratic accountability. Their ‘tech exceptionalist’ view of platforms as state-like entities focuses on regulating existing concentrations of power instead of structural reforms, and they largely overlook the role of state regulation in constituting corporate power. Neither considers substantially reforming today’s privatised, highly-concentrated social media market. Consequently, they at best offer partial and unequal accountability. Instead, the article advocates reforms guided by an ideal of economic democracy, aiming to redistribute ownership and control of digital infrastructure.

Public and private power in social media governance: multistakeholderism, the rule of law and democratic accountability