Regulating social media through self-regulation: a process-tracing case study of the European Commission and Facebook

References

• Academic references
   Google Scholar
• Ananny, M., and T. Gillespie. 2017. “Public Platforms: Beyond the Cycle of Shocks and Exceptions." Paper presented to Interventions: Communication Research and Practice, 67th Annual Conference of the International Communications Association, San Diego, CA, May 25–29.
   Google Scholar
• Beach, D., and R. B. Pedersen. 2016. Causal Case Study Methods: Foundations and Guidelines for Comparing, Matching, and Tracing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bimber, B. 2014. “Digital Media in the Obama Campaigns of 2008 and 2012: Adaptation to the Personalized Political Communication Environment.” Journal of Information Technology and Politics 11 (2): 130–150. doi:10.1080/19331681.2014.895691.
   Google Scholar
• Bradley, C. A., and J. G. Kelley. 2008. “The Concept of International Delegation.” Law and Contemporary Problems 71 (1): 1–36.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, I. 2010. “Beware Self-Regulation.” Index on Censorship 39 (1): 98–106. doi:10.1177/0306422010362193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, N., and J. Peters. 2018. “Say This, Not That: Government Regulation and Control of Social Media First Amendment Symposium.” Syracuse Law Review 68 (3): 521–546.
   Google Scholar
• Cooley, A., and H. Spruyt. 2009. Contracting States: Sovereign Transfers in International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cremonesi, C., A. Seddone, G. Bobba, and M. Mancosu. 2019. “The European Union in the Media Coverage of the 2019 European Election Campaign in Italy: Towards the Europeanization of the Italian Public Sphere.” Journal of Modern Italian Studies 24 (5): 668–690. doi:10.1080/1354571X.2019.1681686.
   Google Scholar
• da Conceicao-Heldt, E. 2013. “Do Agents ‘Run Amok’? A Comparison of Agency Slack in the EU and US Trade Policy in the Doha Round.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 15 (1): 21–36. doi:10.1080/13876988.2012.754152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• da Conceição, E. 2010. “Who Controls Whom? Dynamics of Power Delegation and Agency Losses in EU Trade Politics.” Journal of Common Market Studies 48 (4): 1107–1126. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02086.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daskal, J. 2019. “Speech Across Borders.” Virginia Law Review 105 (8): 1605–1666.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delreux, T., and J. Adriaensen. 2017. “Introduction. Use and Limitations of the Principal–Agent Model in Studying the European Union.” In The Principal Agent Model and the European Union, Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics, edited by T. Delreux, and J. Adriaensen, 1–34. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Dijkstra, H. 2014. “Approaches to Delegation in EU Foreign Policy: The Case of the Commission.” In New Approaches to EU Foreign Policy, edited by M. Wilga, and I. Pawel Karolewski, 38–56. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dommett, K., and S. Power. 2019. “The Political Economy of Facebook Advertising: Election Spending, Regulation and Targeting Online.” The Political Quarterly 90 (2): 257–265. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.12687.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dommett, K., and J. Zhu. 2022. “The Barriers to Regulating the Online World: Insights from UK Debates on Online Political Advertising.” Policy & Internet 14 (4): 772–787.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsig, M. 2007. Delegation and agency in EU trade policy-making: Bringing Brussels back in. Paper prepared for delivery at EUSA Conference - Montreal, Canada May 17-May 19, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Flew, T., F. Martin, and N. Suzor. 2019. “Internet Regulation as Media Policy: Rethinking the Question of Digital Communication Platform Governance.” Journal of Digital Media & Policy 10 (1): 33–50. doi:10.1386/jdmp.10.1.33_1.
   Google Scholar
• Franchino, F. 2000a. “Control of the Commission's Executive Functions: Uncertainty, Conflict and Decision Rules.” European Union Politics 1 (1): 63–92. doi:10.1177/1465116500001001004.
   Google Scholar
• Franchino, F. 2000b. “The Commission's Executive Discretion, Information and Comitology.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 12 (2): 155–181. doi:10.1177/0951692800012002002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furness, M. 2013. “Who Controls the European External Action Service? Agent Autonomy in EU External Policy.” European Foreign Affairs Review 18 (1): 103–126. doi:10.54648/EERR2013006.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, R. 2015. “Party Change, Social Media and the Rise of “Citizen-Initiated” Campaigning.” Party Politics 21 (2): 183–197. doi:10.1177/1354068812472575.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, R., and I. McAllister. 2015. “Normalising or Equalising Party Competition? Assessing the Impact of the Web on Election Campaigning.” Political Studies 63 (3): 529–547. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guess, A., and B. Lyons. 2020. “Misinformation, Disinformation, and Online Propaganda.” In Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform, edited by N. Persily, and J. Tucker, 10–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins, D., D. A. Lake, D. L. Nielson, M. J. Tierney, et al. 2006. “Delegation Under Anarchy: States, International Organizations, and Principal-Agent Theory.” In Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions, edited by D. L. Nielson, 3–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Héritier, A., and S. Eckert. 2008. “New Modes of Governance in the Shadow of Hierarchy: Self-Regulation by Industry in Europe.” Journal of Public Policy 28 (1): 113–138. doi:10.1017/S0143814X08000809.
   Google Scholar
• Hix, S., and M. Marsh. 2011. “Second-order Effects Plus pan-European Political Swings: An Analysis of European Parliament Elections Across Time.” Electoral Studies 30 (1): 4–15. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2010.09.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, K., and N. Spierings. 2016. Social Media, Parties, and Political Inequalities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Keller, D. 2018. Internet Platforms: Observations on Speech, Danger, and Money (Aegis Series Paper no. 1807). A Hoover Institution essay, Stanford University, California.
   Google Scholar
• Kiewiet, R., and M. D. McCubbins. 1991. The Logic of Delegation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kirk, N., and L. Teeling. 2022. “A Review of Political Advertising Online During the 2019 European Elections and Establishing Future Regulatory Requirements in Ireland.” Irish Political Studies 37 (1): 85–102. doi:10.1080/07907184.2021.1907888.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koc-Michalska, K., D. G. Lilleker, T. Michalski, R. Gibson, and J. M. Zajac. 2021. “Facebook Affordances and Citizen Engagement During Elections: European Political Parties and Their Benefit from Online Strategies?” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 18 (2): 180–193. doi:10.1080/19331681.2020.1837707.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korff, D. 2014. The Rule of Law on the Internet and in the Wider Digital World (Issue Paper). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.
   Google Scholar
• Kreiss, D., and S. Mcgregor. 2018. “Technology Firms Shape Political Communication: The Work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google with Campaigns During the 2016 U.S. Presidential Cycle.” Political Communication 35 (2): 155–177. doi:10.1080/10584609.2017.1364814.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreiss, D., and S. Mcgregor. 2019. “The ‘Arbiters of What Our Voters See’: Facebook and Google’s Struggle with Policy, Process, and Enforcement Around Political Advertising.” Political Communication 36 (4): 499–522. doi:10.1080/10584609.2019.1619639.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laloux, T. 2017. “Designing a Collective Agent for Trilogues in the European Parliament.” In The Principal Agent Model and the European Union, Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics, edited by T. Delreux, and J. Adriaensen, 83–103. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Lane, J., and J. Kivisto. 2008. “Interests, Information, and Incentives in Higher Education: Principal-Agent Theory and its Potential Applications to the Study of Higher Education Governance.” In Higher Education, edited by J. Smart, 141–179. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Leerssen, P., J. Ausloos, B. Zarouali, N. Helberger, and C. H. de Vreese. 2019. “Platform ad Archives: Promises and Pitfalls.” Internet Policy Review 8 (4). doi:10.14763/2019.4.1421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lilleker, D., K. Koc-Michalska, R. Negrine, R. Gibson, T. Vedel, and S. Strudel. 2019. Social Media Campaigning in Europe. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Marwick, A., and R. Lewis. 2017. Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online. New York: Data & Society Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2019. Regulatory Effectiveness in the Era of Digitalisation. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Ohlin, J. D., and D. Hollis. 2021. Defending Democracies: Combating Foreign Election Interference in a Digital Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pasquino, G., and M. Valbruzzi. 2019. “The 2019 European Elections: A ‘Second-Order’ Vote with ‘First-Order’ Effects.” Journal of Modern Italian Studies 24 (5): 736–756. doi:10.1080/1354571X.2019.1681706.
   Google Scholar
• Picard, R., and V. Pickard. 2017. Essential Principles for Contemporary Media and Communications Policymaking. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
   Google Scholar
• Pollack, M. 1997. “Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the European Community.” International Organization 51 (1): 99–134. doi:10.1162/002081897550311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollack, M. 1999. “Delegation, Agency and Agenda Setting in the Treaty of Amsterdam.” European Integration Online Papers (EIoP) 3.
   Google Scholar
• Reykers, Y., and D. Beach. 2017. “Process-Tracing as a Tool to Analyse Discretion.” In The Principal Agent Model and the European Union, Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics, edited by T. Delreux, and J. Adriaensen, 255–281. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Righetti, N., F. Giglietto, A. E. Kakavand, A. Kulichkina, G. Marino, and M. Terenzi. 2022. Political Advertisement and Coordinated Behavior on Social Media in the Lead-Up to the 2021 German Federal Elections. Dusseldorf: Media Authority of North Rhine-Westphalia.
   Google Scholar
• Risso, L. 2018. “Harvesting Your Soul? Cambridge Analytica and Brexit.” In Brexit Means Brexit: The Selected Proceedings of the Symposium, edited by C. Jansohn, 75–90. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur: Mainz.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, R., and S. Niederer. 2020. The Politics of Social Media Manipulation. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tallberg, J. 2002. “Delegation to Supranational Institutions: Why, How, and with What Consequences?” West European Politics 25 (1): 23–46. doi:10.1080/713601584.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thatcher, M., and A. S. Sweet. 2002. “Theory and Practice of Delegation to Non-Majoritarian Institutions.” West European Politics 25 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1080/713601583.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfs, W. 2022. European Political Parties and Party Finance Reform: Funding Democracy?. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Wolfs, W., G.-J. Put, and S. Van Hecke. 2021. “Explaining the Reform of the Europarties’ Selection Procedures for Spitzenkandidaten.” Journal of European Integration 43 (7): 891–914. doi:10.1080/07036337.2021.1876687.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuiderveen Borgesius, F., J. Möller, S. Kruikemeier, R. Ó. Fathaigh, K. Irion, T. Dobber, B. Bodo, and C. H. de Vreese. 2018. “Online Political Microtargeting: Promises and Threats for Democracy.” Utrecht Law Review 14 (1): 82–96. doi:10.18352/ulr.420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Interviews
   Google Scholar
• Interview 1. Policy Officer in DG CONNECT (European Commission), telephone interview.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 2. Government Affairs and Public Policy Manager at the Google Brussels Office, telephone interview.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 3. Policy Officer in DG CONNECT (European Commission), telephone interview.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 4. Senior Official of the European People’s Party, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 5. Transcript of media interview with Nick Clegg, Facebook Vice-President of Global Affairs and Communications.
   Google Scholar
• Primary Documents
   Google Scholar
• EPP, PES, ECRP, ALDE, EGP, PEL and EFA, Letter to Mark Zuckerberg, Brussels, 18 April 2019.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2015. Report on the 2014 European Parliament Elections, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2018a. Communication from the European Commission: Tackling Online Disinformation – A European Approach (COM(2018)236final), Brussels, 17 pp.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2018b. Roadmaps to implement the Code of Practice on disinformation, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2018c. Communication from the European Commission: Securing free and fair European elections (COM(2018) 637 final), Brussels, 12 September 2018, 10 pp.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2018d. Recommendation from the European Commission on enhancing the European nature and efficient conduct of the 2019 elections to the European Parliament (C(2018) 900 final), Brussels, 14 February 2018, 6 pp.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2018e. A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation: Report of the independent High level Group on fake news and online disinformation, Brussels, March 2018, 41 pp.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2019. Tackling online disinformation, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2020a. Commission Staff Working Document: Assessment of the Code of Practice on Disinformation - Achievements and areas for further improvement (SWD(2020)180final), Brussels, 28 pp.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2020b. Annex to the Communication from the European Commission: Commission Work Programme 2021 – A Union of Vitality in a World of Fragility (COM(2020)690final), Brussels, 26 pp.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2020c. Study for the “Assessment of the implementation of the Code of Practice on Disinformation”: Final Report, Luxembourg, 139 pp.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament, Council of the European Union and European Commission. 2019. Letter to Mr Nick Clegg – Facebook (D 200794), Brussels, 16 April 2019, 2 pp.
   Google Scholar
• European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services. 2020. ERGA Report on disinformation: Assessment of the implementation of the Code of Practice. Retrieved from https://erga-online.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/ERGA-2019-report-published-2020-LQ.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. 2018a. Code of Practice on Disinformation, Brussels, 12 pp.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. 2018b. Annex II Current Best Practices from Signatories of the Code of Practice, Brussels, 14 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Facebook. 2019a. Facebook Baseline Report on Implementation of the Code of Practice on Disinformation, January 2019, 11 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Facebook. 2019b. Facebook January 2019 Update on Implementation of the Code of Practice on Disinformation, January 2019, 17 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Facebook. 2019c. Facebook February update on implementation of the Code of Practice on Disinformation, February 2019, 17 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Facebook. 2019d. Facebook March 2019 monthly update on implementation of the Code of Practice on Disinformation, March 2019, 20 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Facebook. 2019e. Facebook Reports on Implementation of the Code of Practice on Disinformation, April 2019, 40 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Sounding Board. 2018. The Sounding Board’s Unanimous Final Opinion on the So-Called Code of Practice, Brussels, 24 September 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Newspaper Articles
   Google Scholar
• IDEA International. 2021. “First national Code of Conduct on online political advertising in the European Union signed by Dutch political parties and global online platforms.” Press Release, February 9. https://www.idea.int/news-media/news/first-national-code-conduct-online-political-advertising-european-union-signed-dutch.
   Google Scholar
• Kayali, L., and M. De La Baume. 2019. “EU on Facebook ad rules.” Politico Europe, April 16. https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-institutions-blast-facebook-over-political-advertising-rules-social-media-european-election-system/.
   Google Scholar