BEYOND PERFORMATIVE TRANSPARENCY: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE EU CODE OF PRACTICE ON DISINFORMATION
BEYOND PERFORMATIVE TRANSPARENCY: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE EU CODE OF PRACTICE ON DISINFORMATION
复制标题
超越执行透明度：从欧盟反信息行为准则中汲取的经验教训
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2023
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Eileen Culloty
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kirsty Park;Eileen Culloty
《欧盟虚假信息业务守则》试图通过自我监管模式处理虚假信息问题，但成效有限。我们分析了《准则》签署方（谷歌、Meta、微软、Mozilla、TikTok和Twitter）自报的1114项行动，这些行动摘自47份针对新型冠状病毒相关虚假信息的月度透明度报告。虽然透明度报告旨在提供明确、有意义的报告，但实际上，由于重复、模糊的描述和缺乏高质量的数据，评估每个平台的虚假信息行动的过程很困难。平台行动经常以宣传的口吻进行报道，有些与COVID-19无关或虚假信息。
我们认为，我们理解社交媒体平台在数据收集和这些数据提取过程产生的社会结果中所扮演的角色的方式需要受到质疑。借鉴数据殖民主义的概念，我们呼吁透明地访问数据，因为平台认为的财产是基于“商业动机的提取形式”，而不是“自然发生的社会知识形式”。欧洲关于监管在线虚假信息的辩论需要从更广泛的角度来看待作为公共基础设施的数字环境。政策制定者可以通过专注于通过强有力的竞争、数据可移植性和互操作性规则来监管数字环境，从而实现更好的公民和民主成果。这些行动有可能打破大型科技公司的主导地位，同时激励为公民提供更好的新服务。
The EU Code of Practice on Disinformation has attempted to approach the issue of disinformation through a self-regulatory model, but this has seen limited success. We analyse 1114 self-reported actions from Code signatories (Google, Meta, Microsoft, Mozilla, TikTok and Twitter) taken from 47 monthly transparency reports addressing Covid-19 related disinformation. While the transparency reports were designed to provide clear, meaningful reporting, in reality the process of assessing each platform’s disinformation actions was difficult due to repetition, vague descriptions and a lack of quality data. Platform actions were often reported using a promotional tone and some were irrelevant to COVID-19 or disinformation.
We argue that the way in which we understand the role that social media platforms play in both the collection of data and the social outcomes that result from these data extraction processes needs to be questioned. Drawing upon the concept of data colonialism, we call for transparent access to data based on the idea that what platforms view as property is based on a “commercially motivated form of extraction” rather than a “naturally occurring form of social knowledge”. European debates about regulating online disinformation need to be set against a broader perspective on regulating the digital environment as a public infrastructure. Policymakers can achieve better civic and democratic outcomes by focusing on regulating the digital environment through, for example, robust competition, data portability, and interoperability rules. Such actions have the potential to break the dominance of Big Tech while incentivising better and new services for citizens.