Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Digital Media & Policy
  4. Volume 11, Issue 3
  5. Article
Regulating digital platform power
  • ISSN: 2516-3523
  • E-ISSN: 2516-3531

Abstract

In an internet-connected era, prominence and discoverability propose new challenges for content providers, as search and discovery functions become essential to access content online. However, general definitional confusion on these notions has contributed to a lack of understanding of what discoverability means for the online audio-visual media industry, which in turn leads to a lack of clarity over the scope, values and intentions of related regulatory proposals. This article criticizes these policy approaches and proposes a fine-tuned understanding of content discoverability that is suited to our contemporary media system and informs media and communication policy debates in this area. By contextualizing it in an industry-led governance system with opaque content-curation strategies, I apply a new analytical lens to discoverability that shows its implications for three media policy issues: namely organizations’ decisional transparency, users’ diversity of exposure and the fostering of a plurality of media independent from undue power and influence.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Economic and Social Research Council of the United Kingdom (Award ESCR Doctoral Training Partnership Studentship)
© 2020 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/jdmp_00027_1
2020-11-01
2024-10-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ananny, M., and Crawford, K.. ( 2018;), ‘ Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. ’, New Media and Society, 20:3, pp. 973–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BBC ( 2018), BBC’s Response to Ofcom’s Consultation on Proposed Changes to the Linear EPG Code and Future of the Prominence Regime, Review of prominence for public service broadcasting , London:: Ofcom;, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/131178/BBC.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Channel 4 ( 2018), Channel 4’s Response to Ofcom’s Consultation on Proposed Changes to the Linear EPG Code and Future of the Prominence Regime, Review of prominence for public service broadcasting , London:: Ofcom;, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/131180/Channel-4.pdf. 12 April 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Community Media Representative 1 ( 2020;), in-person interview with the author. , London:, 1 April.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Craufurd Smith, R., and Tambini, D.. ( 2012;), ‘ Measuring media plurality in the United Kingdom: Policy choices and regulatory challenges. ’, Journal of Media Law, 4:1, pp. 35–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Desjardins, D.. ( 2016), Discoverability: Toward a Common Frame of Reference – Part 1, https://trends.cmf-fmc.ca/wp-content/uploads/CMF_-_Discoverability_Toward_a_Common_Frame_of_Reference_-_Final.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. European Commission ( 2020), The Digital Services Act Package, Brussels:: European Commission;, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/digital-services-act-package. Accessed 16 July 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. European Union ( 2018a;), ‘ Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Audiovisual Media Services Directive). ’, Official Journal of the European Union, 2018/1808, https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/1808/oj. Accessed 12 April 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. European Union ( 2018b;), ‘ Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code. ’, Official Journal of the European Union, 2018/1972, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018L1972. Accessed 15 May 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Evens, T., and Donders, K.. ( 2018), Platform Power and Policy in Transforming Television Markets, London:: Palgrave Global Media Policy and Business;.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Expert Media Partners ( 2018), Report on the UK Market in EPG Positions, London:, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/116287/expert-media-partners.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Freedman, D.. ( 2005;), ‘ Promoting diversity and pluralism in contemporary communication policies in the United States and the United Kingdom. ’, International Journal on Media Management, 7:1&2, pp. 16–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Gillespie, T.. ( 2018), Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media, New Haven, CT and London:: Yale University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Google Search ( 2019;), ‘ How search algorithms work. ’, 5 December, https://www.google.com/intl/en_uk/search/howsearchworks/algorithms/. Accessed 21 February 2020.
  15. Gorwa, R.,, Binns, R., and Katzenbach, C.. ( 2020;), ‘ Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. ’, Big Data and Society, 7:1, pp. 1–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Helberger, N.. ( 2018;), ‘ Challenging diversity: Social media platforms and a new conception of media diversity. ’, in D. Tambini, and M. Moore. (eds), Digital Dominance: The Power of Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple, New York:: Oxford University Press;, pp. 153–75.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Helberger, N.,, Karppinen, K., and D’Acunto, L.. ( 2018;), ‘ Exposure diversity as a design principle for recommender systems. ’, Information Communication and Society, 21:2, pp. 191–207.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Hesmondhalgh, D., and Lotz, A. D.. ( 2020;), ‘ Video screen interfaces as new sites of media circulation power. ’, International Journal of Communication, 14:0, p. 24.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. ISED Canada ( 2020), Canada’s Communication Future: Time to Act: Final Report, Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review , Ottawa:: ISED Canada;, www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/110.nsf/eng/00012.html. Accessed 9 April 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. ITV ( 2018), ITV’s Response to Ofcom’s Consultation on Proposed Changes to the Linear EPG Code and Future of the Prominence Regime, Review of prominence for public service broadcasting , London:: Ofcom;, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/131186/ITV.pdf. Accessed 9 April 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Johnson, C.,, Dempsey, L., and Hills, M.. ( 2020), Routes to Content: How People Decide What TV to Watch, Huddersfield:: University of Huddersfield;, https://mhm.hud.ac.uk/routes/routes-report.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Karppinen, K., and Hallvard, M.. ( 2012;), ‘ What we talk about when we talk about document analysis. ’, in N. Just, and M. Puppis. (eds), Trends in Communication Policy Research: New Theories, Methods and Subjects, Bristol:: Intellect;, pp. 360–79.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Karppinen, K., and Moe, H.. ( 2016;), ‘ What we talk about when talk about “media independence”. ’, Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture, 23:2, pp. 105–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Klonick, K.. ( 2018;), ‘ The new governors: The people, rules, and processes governing online speech. ’, Harvard Law Review, 131:6, pp. 1599–670.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Lobato, R.. ( 2018;), ‘ On discoverability. ’, Flow Journal, 29 May, https://www.flowjournal.org/2018/05/on-discoverability/. Accessed 2 April 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Mazzoli, E. M.. ( 2020), Facebook: Balancing Freedom of Expression and Users’ Protection, International Report 163 , Middlesex:: Privacy Laws & Business;, https://www.privacylaws.com/reports-gateway/reports/. Accessed 1 March 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Mazzucato, M.. ( 2018), The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy, London:: Allen Lane;.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. McDonald, A.. ( 2018;), ‘ Sky urges Ofcom to look “beyond the rhetoric” of PSBs in prominence decision. ’, Digital TV, 16 November, https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2018/11/16/sky-urges-ofcom-to-look-beyond-the-rhetoric-of-psbs-in-prominence-decision/. Accessed 16 April 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. McKelvey, F.. ( 2016;), ‘ The new attention factory: Discoverability and Canadian cultural policy. ’, The Monitor: Media, Internet, Algorithm, 1 July, https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/new-attention-factory. Accessed 16 April 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. McKelvey, F., and Hunt, R.. ( 2019;), ‘ Discoverability: Toward a definition of content discovery through platforms. ’, Social Media + Society, 5:1, pp. 1–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Medienstaatsvertrag ( 2019), Staatsvertrag zur Modernisierung der Medienordnung in Deutschland, Berlin:: Beschlussfassung der Konferenz der Regierungschefinnen und Regierungschefs der Länder;, https://www.rlp.de/fileadmin/rlp-stk/pdf-Dateien/Medienpolitik/ModStV_MStV_und_JMStV_2019-12-05_MPK.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Möller, J.,, Trilling, D.,, Helberger, N., and B. van Es. ( 2018;), ‘ Do not blame it on the algorithm: An empirical assessment of multiple recommender systems and their impact on content diversity. ’, Information Communication and Society, 21:7, pp. 959–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Moore, M., and Tambini, D.. (eds) ( 2018), Digital Dominance: The Power of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple, New York:: Oxford University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. MTM and Ofcom ( 2019), Review of TV User Interfaces in the UK Market: Current Offerings and Future Developments – Final Report, London:: Ofcom;, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/154390/mtm-review-tv-user-interfaces-uk-market-full-report.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Napoli, P. M.. ( 1999;), ‘ Deconstructing the diversity principle. ’, Journal of Communication, 49:4, pp. 7–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Napoli, P. M.. ( 2011;), ‘ Exposure diversity reconsidered. ’, Journal of Information Policy, 1:2, pp. 246–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Napoli, P. M.. ( 2014;), ‘ Automated media: An institutional theory perspective on algorithmic media production and consumption. ’, Communication Theory, 24:3, pp. 340–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Netflix ( 2020;), ‘ How Netflix’s recommendations system works. ’, https://help.netflix.com/en/node/100639. Accessed 18 April 2020.
  39. Ofcom ( 2010;), ‘ Code of practice on electronic programme guides. ’, 21 May, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/epg-code. Accessed 12 May 2020.
  40. Ofcom ( 2018a;), ‘ EPG prominence: A report on the discoverability of PSB and local TV services. ’, 27 July, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/116288/report-psb-local-tv-discoverability.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2020.
  41. Ofcom ( 2018b;), ‘ Review of rules for prominence of public service broadcasters and local TV: Consultation on proposed changes to the linear EPG Code and future of the regime. ’, 27 July, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/116273/consultation-epg-code-prominence-regime.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2020.
  42. Ofcom ( 2019a;), ‘ Review of prominence for public service broadcasting: Recommendations to Government for a new framework to keep PSB TV prominent in an online world. ’, 25 July, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/epg-code-prominence-regime. Accessed 12 April 2020.
  43. Ofcom ( 2019b;), ‘ Small screen: Big debate. ’, 4 July, https://www.smallscreenbigdebate.co.uk/. Accessed 12 May 2020.
  44. PSM representative 1 ( 2019;), in-person interview with the author. , London:, 26 September.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. PSM representative 2 ( 2019;), in-person interview with the author. , London:, 22 October.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. PSM representative 6 ( 2019;), in-person interview with the author. , London:, 2 December.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Roberts, S. T.. ( 2019), Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media, New Haven and London:: Yale University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Samsung Electronics UK ( 2018), Samsung Electronics UK’s Response to Ofcom’s Consultation on Proposed Changes to the Linear EPG Code and Future of the Prominence Regime, review of prominence for public service broadcasting , London:: Ofcom;, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/131201/Samsung.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Sky UK ( 2018a), Sky’s Response to Ofcom’s Consultation on Proposed Changes to the Linear EPG Code and Future of the Prominence Regime, review of prominence for public service broadcasting , London:: Ofcom;, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/131203/Sky.PDF. Accessed 12 April 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Sky UK ( 2018b;), ‘ The need to collaborate. ’, 15 November, https://www.skygroup.sky/en-gb/article/The-need-to-collaborate. Accessed 16 April 2020.
  51. Tambini, D.. ( 2001), Communications: Revolution and Reform, London:: The Institute for Public Policy Research;.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Tambini, D., and Labo, S.. ( 2016;), ‘ Digital intermediaries in the UK: Implications for news plurality. ’, Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 18:4, pp. 33–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. TechUK ( 2018), TechUK’s Response to Ofcom’s Consultation on Proposed Changes to the Linear EPG Code and Future of the Prominence Regime, review of prominence for public service broadcasting , London:: Ofcom;, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/131205/techUK.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Van Der Sloot, B.. ( 2012;), ‘ Walking a thin line: The regulation of EPGs. ’, Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology & E-Commerce Law, 3:2, pp. 138–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Mazzoli, Eleonora Maria. ( 2020;), ‘ Online content governance: Towards a framework for analysis for prominence and discoverability. ’, Journal of Digital Media & Policy, 11:3, pp. 301–319, doi: https://doi.org/10.1386/jdmp_00027_1
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/jdmp_00027_1
Loading
Online content governance: Towards a framework for analysis for prominence and discoverability
Journal of Digital Media & Policy 11, 301 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1386/jdmp_00027_1
/content/journals/10.1386/jdmp_00027_1
/content/journals/10.1386/jdmp_00027_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): broadcasting; content regulation; discoverability; internet platforms; media governance; media policy; online distribution; prominence; public interest

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error