1,271
Views
14
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Terms of service and bills of rights: new mechanisms of constitutionalisation in the social media environment?

ORCID Icon
Pages 122-138 | Received 31 Oct 2017, Accepted 08 Mar 2018, Published online: 21 May 2018
 

ABSTRACT

From a cursory look at the terms of service of the main social networking websites, it is immediately possible to detect that Facebook’s show a peculiar configuration. Although they represent a mere contract between private parties, these terms adopt the traditional jargon of constitutional texts and articulate their contents in terms of rights, principles and duties. This curious pairing between norms regulating social media and the constitutional sphere is also apparent in a series of non-binding documents that are unequivocally named ‘bill of rights’ and seek to articulate a set of principles to protect social media users. This paper examines whether the emergence of a constitutional tone in this limited number of texts could be related to the effective, or aspirational, constitutional function that these documents exercise. The identification of a series of significant shortcomings will lead to exclude that social media’s terms of service and bills of rights of social media users currently play a constitutionalising role. Nevertheless, the possibility to theoretically justify the use of these documents as mechanisms of constitutionalisation in the social media environment will be adduced as an evidence of the potential constitutional aspirations of these texts.

Acknowledgements

In no particular order, the author would like to thank Corentin Baslé, the researchers of the ‘Global Constitutionalism’ unit at the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG) of Berlin Dr Christian Djeffal, Jörg Pohle and Julian Hölzel, his supervisor Dr TJ McIntyre, Daniel Goode, the anonymous reviewers of IRLCT, and the editors of this special issue for their helpful comments, constructive criticism and constant encouragement.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 Facebook, Google+, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Snapchat, Tumblr, Twitter, YouTube have been taken into account as a representative example of the main social networking websites.

 

Additional information

Funding

The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the Irish Research Council and of the Sutherland School of Law, University College Dublin.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 53.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 878.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.