Keyword: digital platforms

Media Concentration Law: Gaps and Promises in the Digital Age

Seipp, T.
Media and Communication, vol. 11, iss. : 2, pp: 392-405, 2023

Abstract

Power concentrations are increasing in today’s media landscape. Reasons for this include increasing structural and technological dependences on digital platform companies, as well as shifts in opinion power and control over news production, distribution, and consumption. Digital opinion power and platformised media markets have prompted the need for a re-evaluation of the current approach. This article critically revisits and analyses media concentration rules. To this end, I employ a normative conceptual framework that examines ”opinion power in the platform world” at three distinct levels (individual citizen, institutional newsroom, and media ecosystem). At each level, I identify the existing legal tools and gaps in controlling power and concentration in the digital age. Based on that, I offer a unifying theoretical framework for a “digital media concentration law,” along with core concepts and guiding principles. I highlight policy goals and fields that are outside the traditional scope yet are relevant for addressing issues relating to the digital age. Additionally, the emerging European Union regulatory framework—specifically the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, and the European Media Freedom Act—reflects an evolving approach regarding platforms and media concentration. On a final note, the analysis draws from the mapping and evaluation results of a Europe-wide study on media pluralism and diversity online, which examined (national) media concentration rules.

digital platforms, editorial independence, European regulation, media concentration, Media law, media pluralism, opinion power, structural dependency

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Media Concentration Law: Gaps and Promises in the Digital Age}, author = {Seipp, T.}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i2.6393}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-06-30}, journal = {Media and Communication}, volume = {11}, issue = {2}, pages = {392-405}, abstract = {Power concentrations are increasing in today’s media landscape. Reasons for this include increasing structural and technological dependences on digital platform companies, as well as shifts in opinion power and control over news production, distribution, and consumption. Digital opinion power and platformised media markets have prompted the need for a re-evaluation of the current approach. This article critically revisits and analyses media concentration rules. To this end, I employ a normative conceptual framework that examines ”opinion power in the platform world” at three distinct levels (individual citizen, institutional newsroom, and media ecosystem). At each level, I identify the existing legal tools and gaps in controlling power and concentration in the digital age. Based on that, I offer a unifying theoretical framework for a “digital media concentration law,” along with core concepts and guiding principles. I highlight policy goals and fields that are outside the traditional scope yet are relevant for addressing issues relating to the digital age. Additionally, the emerging European Union regulatory framework—specifically the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, and the European Media Freedom Act—reflects an evolving approach regarding platforms and media concentration. On a final note, the analysis draws from the mapping and evaluation results of a Europe-wide study on media pluralism and diversity online, which examined (national) media concentration rules.}, keywords = {digital platforms, editorial independence, European regulation, media concentration, Media law, media pluralism, opinion power, structural dependency}, }

The platformisation of digital payments: The fabrication of consumer interest in the EU FinTech agenda external link

Ferrari, V.
Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 45, 2022

Abstract

This paper investigates, through a qualitative analysis of official documents, how certain imaginaries about technology filter into EU policymaking, allowing or accelerating the transformation of payment infrastructures into the platform economy. One of the ways in which socio-technical imaginaries filter into policymaking is, it turns out, by informing an image of the consumer which serves to justify measures for the realization of a desired future. In particular, the documents offer a view of the consumer as an actor that is empowered by digitisation. The thesis of this paper is that this view of the consumer is partial: the rhetoric of consumer technological empowerment outweighs and conceals much needed considerations about the vulnerability of consumers vis-a-vis data-intensive payment technologies. Ultimately, the fault lies with the future imaginaries upon which such image is grounded. The vision of the digital payment infrastructure portrayed in the documents is in fact problematic for two reasons. First, the technologies that are portraited as desirable are chosen based on industry interests and trends rather than considerations of benefits and risks that these technologies entail. Secondly, the assumption that a liberalized market will offer more and better choices is flawed, as platformisation entails risks of monopolization and abuses of market power. We suggest that policymakers in this domain should be more critical of the risks entailed by platformisation, and open their imagination to alternative technological futures.

digital platforms, frontpage, Platforms, Technologie en recht

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {The platformisation of digital payments: The fabrication of consumer interest in the EU FinTech agenda}, author = {Ferrari, V.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/computerlawsecurityreview_2022/}, doi = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105687}, year = {0519}, date = {2022-05-19}, journal = { Computer Law & Security Review}, volume = {45}, pages = {}, abstract = {This paper investigates, through a qualitative analysis of official documents, how certain imaginaries about technology filter into EU policymaking, allowing or accelerating the transformation of payment infrastructures into the platform economy. One of the ways in which socio-technical imaginaries filter into policymaking is, it turns out, by informing an image of the consumer which serves to justify measures for the realization of a desired future. In particular, the documents offer a view of the consumer as an actor that is empowered by digitisation. The thesis of this paper is that this view of the consumer is partial: the rhetoric of consumer technological empowerment outweighs and conceals much needed considerations about the vulnerability of consumers vis-a-vis data-intensive payment technologies. Ultimately, the fault lies with the future imaginaries upon which such image is grounded. The vision of the digital payment infrastructure portrayed in the documents is in fact problematic for two reasons. First, the technologies that are portraited as desirable are chosen based on industry interests and trends rather than considerations of benefits and risks that these technologies entail. Secondly, the assumption that a liberalized market will offer more and better choices is flawed, as platformisation entails risks of monopolization and abuses of market power. We suggest that policymakers in this domain should be more critical of the risks entailed by platformisation, and open their imagination to alternative technological futures.}, keywords = {digital platforms, frontpage, Platforms, Technologie en recht}, }

The post-editorial control era: how EU media law matches platforms’ organisational control with cooperative responsibility external link

Drunen, M. van
Journal of Media Law, vol. 12, num: 2, pp: 166-190, 2020

Abstract

This paper argues the AVMSD attaches cooperative responsibility to platforms’ organisational control. Firstly, it explores how the new concept of organisational control differs from the editorial control that has traditionally been central to media law, in particular concerning the greater involvement of other stakeholders active on platforms. Secondly, it analyses the measures the AVMSD requires platforms to take with regard to content on their service in light of their organisational control. Finally, it shows how the AVMSD not only requires platforms to assume responsibility for actions under their direct control, but also to enable users and uploaders to exercise their inherent influence differently. The AVMSD consequently moves away from centralised, and towards cooperative responsibility for platforms. The paper concludes by evaluating the choices the AVMSD makes (and fails to make) in the operationalisation of this new responsibility model.

AVMS Directive, digital platforms, frontpage, Journalistiek, Media law, redactie

Bibtex

Article{Drunen2020, title = {The post-editorial control era: how EU media law matches platforms’ organisational control with cooperative responsibility}, author = {Drunen, M. van}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17577632.2020.1796067}, doi = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2020.1796067}, year = {0728}, date = {2020-07-28}, journal = {Journal of Media Law}, volume = {12}, number = {2}, pages = {166-190}, abstract = {This paper argues the AVMSD attaches cooperative responsibility to platforms’ organisational control. Firstly, it explores how the new concept of organisational control differs from the editorial control that has traditionally been central to media law, in particular concerning the greater involvement of other stakeholders active on platforms. Secondly, it analyses the measures the AVMSD requires platforms to take with regard to content on their service in light of their organisational control. Finally, it shows how the AVMSD not only requires platforms to assume responsibility for actions under their direct control, but also to enable users and uploaders to exercise their inherent influence differently. The AVMSD consequently moves away from centralised, and towards cooperative responsibility for platforms. The paper concludes by evaluating the choices the AVMSD makes (and fails to make) in the operationalisation of this new responsibility model.}, keywords = {AVMS Directive, digital platforms, frontpage, Journalistiek, Media law, redactie}, }

Should We Regulate Digital Platforms? A New Framework for Evaluating Policy Options external link

Nooren, P., Gorp, N. van, van Eijk, N. & Fahy, R.
Policy & Internet, vol. 2018, pp: 264-301, 2018

Abstract

The economic and societal impact of digital platforms raises a number of questions for policymakers, including whether existing regulatory approaches and instruments are sufficient to promote and safeguard public interests. This article develops a practical framework that provides structure and guidance to policymakers who design policies for the digital economy. The framework differs from other approaches in taking the digital business models of platforms as the starting point for the analysis. The framework consists of three pillars, namely determining a platform's characteristics, relating these to public interests, and formulating policy options. The framework then invokes a return‐path analysis for assessing how the interventions affect the business model, whether it has the desired effect on public interests, and ensuring it has no undesired side‐effects on public interests. The framework puts forward two key messages for current discussions on digital platforms. First, one should look at the underlying characteristics of platforms rather than trying to understand digital platforms as a single category. Second, policymakers should explore existing rules and policy options, as they seem fit to deal with several characteristics of digital platforms in a time frame that matches the rapid development of platform technologies and business models.

business model analysis, competition policy, consumer protection, digital platforms, frontpage, platform regulation, public interests, Technologie en recht

Bibtex

Article{Nooren2018, title = {Should We Regulate Digital Platforms? A New Framework for Evaluating Policy Options}, author = {Nooren, P. and Gorp, N. van and van Eijk, N. and Fahy, R.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Policy_and_Internet_2018.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.177}, year = {0911}, date = {2018-09-11}, journal = {Policy & Internet}, volume = {2018}, pages = {264-301}, abstract = {The economic and societal impact of digital platforms raises a number of questions for policymakers, including whether existing regulatory approaches and instruments are sufficient to promote and safeguard public interests. This article develops a practical framework that provides structure and guidance to policymakers who design policies for the digital economy. The framework differs from other approaches in taking the digital business models of platforms as the starting point for the analysis. The framework consists of three pillars, namely determining a platform\'s characteristics, relating these to public interests, and formulating policy options. The framework then invokes a return‐path analysis for assessing how the interventions affect the business model, whether it has the desired effect on public interests, and ensuring it has no undesired side‐effects on public interests. The framework puts forward two key messages for current discussions on digital platforms. First, one should look at the underlying characteristics of platforms rather than trying to understand digital platforms as a single category. Second, policymakers should explore existing rules and policy options, as they seem fit to deal with several characteristics of digital platforms in a time frame that matches the rapid development of platform technologies and business models.}, keywords = {business model analysis, competition policy, consumer protection, digital platforms, frontpage, platform regulation, public interests, Technologie en recht}, }