HomeBig Tech, Raiders or Gatekeepers of Democratic Interplay?

HomeBig Tech, Raiders or Gatekeepers of Democratic Interplay?

Big Tech, Raiders or Gatekeepers of Democratic Interplay?

Les « Big Tech », prédateurs ou arbitres du jeu démocratique ?

*  *  *

Published on Monday, May 09, 2022

Abstract

English Français

This new issue of the Cahiers Protagoras will be dedicated to the discretionary context in which political actors are confronted to new censorship rationales. Contributors are invited to study the relationship of dependency of a political communication increasingly vested into social media, confronted to the opacity of moderation policies and the risk of permanent ban from related platforms. Equally, we encourage researchers to explore how this “politically motivated censorship” enforced by Big Tech catalyses the fragmentation of online public debates and the emergence of dissenting echo chambers.

Announcement

English Français

Argument

Alphabet (Google), Meta (Facebook, Instagram), Twitter or ByteDance (Tik-Tok) provide new targeting capabilities featuring many conduits to political actors, allowing them to explore new avenues for the formulation of their messaging (Eyriès, 2018 ; Chester & Montgomery, 2019 ; Pain & Masullo, 2019). Simultaneously, by investing in the sphere of influence of traditional media protagonists, some of the social media platforms have been gradually forced to “assume their responsibilities” and to moderate circulating content that infringes their “community standards”. A context in which these new digital agents, taking advantage of a seeming legal vacuum and enjoying an oligopoly on Big Data, “know, decide and decide who decides” (Zuboff 2019). Big Tech contribute to the advent of a new form of governance built on the asymmetrical model of a “free” experience for users and the added value of their data forsaken to digital companies (Berns & Rouvroy, 2013 ; Berns & Reigeluth, 2021). Added to this is the gatekeeping role endorsed by these Big Tech, which arbitrarily police political expression (Thorson & Wells, 2016 ; Thorson et al., 2019).

Studies (Barrett & Kreiss, 2019 ; Gillespie, 2018) have shown that Tech Giants often amend their user guidelines as to reflect the evolution of the socio-political context, but also due to external pressures determined to influence their norm-setting processes. This progressive endorsement of responsibility has led to a sort of pluralism under trusteeship. Some studies even pointing out double standards in their interventionist fervour (Stjernfelt & Lauritzen, 2020): ranging from ideological biases in the “editorial choices” of their moderators to the permanent bans of official accounts – such as the digital ban of previous US president Donald Trump back in January 2021.

Therefore, this new issue of the Cahiers PROTAGORAS will be dedicated to the discretionary context in which political actors are confronted to new censorship rationales. Contributors are invited to study the relationship of dependency of a political communication increasingly vested into social media, confronted to the opacity of moderation policies and the risk of permanent ban from related platforms. Equally, we encourage researchers to explore how this “politically motivated censorship” enforced by Big Tech catalyses the fragmentation of online public debates and the emergence of dissenting echo chambers. Some opinion leaders – digitally excommunicated – resorting to temporary solutions, or even “emergency solutions” (like the Odysee platform) or migrating to other social media platforms (e.g., Telegram or Gettr) which guarantee total freedom of speech.

Submission guidelines

Proposals (in Word or PDF format) should include:

  1. In a separate file: name, professional or academic status, institutional affiliation, contact details of the author(s) (e-mail and postal addresses).
  2. The text should not exceed 25 000 characters (footnote, spaces and references included)
  3. The title of the article (maximum 180 characters including spaces): Times New Roman, size 12, bold and centred.
  4. The name of the writer: Times New Roman, size 12, not bold and centred.
  5. A reference note about the writer should follow the name. This note should be composed of two to three lines of biographical notes on the writer.
  6. The text is to be entirely written in Times New Roman size 12, justified, without indentation nor stylistic effect.
  7. Space between lines in the document should be: 1.5.
  8. Margin: 2.5 cm on all sides. Standard layout.
  9. Section headings can eventually be bolded and justified on the left.
  10. Titles should not be numbered or organized.
  11. Ensure to always define all the abbreviations used in the text.
  12. Delete all bullet points. The text should be made of complete sentences only.
  13. Use synonyms as often as possible to avoid repetitive wording.
  14. Reduce the number of footnotes to its minimum.
  15. Delete all double (or triple) spaces between words.
  16. Verify all quotes in the article, as well as the spelling of proper names.
  17. Numbers from zero through nine should be spelt out. Digits should be used after that.
  18. Centuries are written as such: 17th century, 18th century, etc.
  19. Quotes that are shorter than four lines should be placed between quotation marks and stay in the body of the text.
  20. Quotes that are longer than four lines should be placed between quotation marks, indented from the body of the text. The quote should, however, remain in Times New Roman size 12.
  21. Referencing sources are directly in the body of the text (i.e. not in footnotes) and presented in this way: (Mayeur 2017: 1) or (Lallemand 2004b: 234).
  22. After the body of the text, the title References (in bold, justified to the left) starts the list of complete references.
    1. For a book: Heller-Roazen Daniel, The Enemy of All: Piracy and the Law of Nations, New York, Zone Books, 2009.
    2. For an article: McKim Richard, “Socratic Self-Knowledge and ‘Knowledge of Knowledge’ in Plato’s Charmides”, Transactions of the American Philological Association, vol. 115, 1985, pp. 59-77.
    3. For an online source: Ponzi Mario, “Hidden refusal. Name and Sprachmagie in Benjamin’s theory of language”, Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 2014, vol. 8, no.2, pp. 253-264. Online: http://www.rifl.unical.it/index.php/rifl/article/view/234.

Deadline for proposals is 15 november 2022.

Please send your abstract to john.vandenhaute@protagoras.be

Proposals will be evaluated through a double-blind review process by the scientific committee. Authors will be notified of the decision of the Editorial Committee on 30 November 2022.

Editorial committee

  • Nicolas Baygert – IHECS-Protagoras, Sciences Po (IEP Paris) & Université Libre de Bruxelles.
  • Baptiste Buidin – IHECS-Protagoras Research Fellow.
  • Esther Durin – Applied Research Coordinator (IHECS), Université Paul-Valéry (Praxiling).
  • Adrien Jahier ­­­– IHECS-Protagoras Research Fellow, Visiting Professor (IHECS).
  • Élise Le Moing-Maas – President of the IHECS PR Section, Université Rennes 2 (PREFics).
  • Loïc Nicolas – Publications Director, IHECS-Protagoras Research Fellow.
  • John Vandenhaute – Research & Development Coordinator, IHECS-Protagoras.

About Protagoras

Attached to the Institut des Hautes Etudes en Communications Sociales (IHECS), the PROTAGORAS think-tank is an inter-university and interdisciplinary research centre specialised in public and political communication. PROTAGORAS aims to build bridges between fundamental and applied research, as well as between scholars and practitioners in public and political communication.

Website

References

  • Barrett, B. et Kreiss, D. (2019). Platform transience: changes in Facebook’s policies, procedures, and affordances in global electoral politics. Internet Policy Review, 8(4).
  • Berns, T. & Reigeluth, T. (2021). Éthique de la communication et de l’information : Une initiation philosophique en contexte technologique avancé. Bruxelles : Éditions de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles.
  • Berns, T. & Rouvroy, A. (2013). Gouvernementalité algorithmique et perspectives d’émancipation. Réseaux, 1(177), 163-196.
  • Chester, J. & Montgomery, K. (2019). The digital commercialization of US politics – 2020 and beyond. Internet Policy Review, 8(4).
  • Eyriès, A. (2018). La twitt-politique : l’élection présidentielle française de 2017 sur les réseaux socionumériques. Pouvoirs, 164, 87-97. 
  • Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale: Yale University Press.
  • Pain P. & Masullo Chen G. (2019). The President Is in: Public Opinion and the Presidential Use of Twitter. Social Media + Society.
  • Reigeluth, T. (2014). Why data is not enough: digital traces as control of self and self- control. Surveillance & Society,12(2), 243-354.
  • Stjernfelt F., & Lauritzen A.M. (2020) Facebook and Google as Offices of Censorship, in: Your Post has been Removed. Springer, Cham, p. 143.
  • Thorson, K., Cotter, K., Medeiros, M., & Pak, C. (2019). Algorithmic Inference, Political Interest, and Exposure to News and Politics on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1642934
  • Thorson, K. & Wells, C. (2016). Curated Flows: A Framework for Mapping Media Exposure in the Digital Age. Communication Theory, 26 (3), 309–328.
  • Zuboff, S. (2019). Le capitalisme de la surveillance – Un nouveau clergé, Esprit, 5, 63-77.

Date(s)

  • Wednesday, November 30, 2022

Keywords

  • political communication, social network, big tech, censorship, media, public communication, GAFAM, communication, governance, social media, democracy, influence, fake news, moderation, self-regulation

Contact(s)

  • John Vandenhaute
    courriel : john [dot] vandenhaute [at] protagoras [dot] be

Information source

  • John Vandenhaute
    courriel : john [dot] vandenhaute [at] protagoras [dot] be

License

CC0-1.0 This announcement is licensed under the terms of Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal.

To cite this announcement

« Big Tech, Raiders or Gatekeepers of Democratic Interplay? », Call for papers, Calenda, Published on Monday, May 09, 2022, https://doi.org/10.58079/18v1

Archive this announcement

  • Google Agenda
  • iCal
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search