Platform governance tantrums: disputes, discourses, and imaginaries

This study is guided by two questions. First, how do governments and social media platform companies articulate disputes over platform governance? Second, how does the public perceive those disputes and, in turn, how do these disputes shape people’s understanding of the future of platform governance? To answer these questions, this study employs critical discourse analysis to examine statements by government officials and representatives of social media companies, and the experiences of social media users (N=30) across Uganda, Canada, and the U.S. The findings show that governments across the three study contexts are engaged in contentious disputes with social media companies. These disputes are animated by the use of formal and forceful measures, including executive orders and withdrawal of services, praises and insults, compliance and resistance. In addition, actors draw on competing discourses such as national security and speech rights, sovereignty and foreign influence, and private and public interests, which demonstrates the complex and opaque nature of these disputes. Interview participants demonstrate ambivalence about platforms and governments, but they still want to see a greater commitment towards public values such as accountability, safety, and transparency. In general, people want to see more oversight of platforms that is rooted in collective responsibility. In a nutshell, people describe collective responsibility as encompassing a wide range of actors (social media users, governments, platform companies, civil society organizations) and governance models, from representative to direct.