Co-regulating algorithmic disclosure for digital platforms
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12651245 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Fabiana Di Porto (0000-0002-4420-9741, corresponding author), Marialuisa Zuppetta |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 40 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 272-293 |
| Publication date | 2020-10-29 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Policy and Society (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1449-4035 • E-ISSN: 1839-3373 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1080/14494035.2020.1809052 |
| OpenAlex | W3096766689 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 12 |
| References cited | 27 |
With digital platforms gaining dominant intermediating role and exerting regulatory functions vis-à-vis small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) through algorithms, EU institutions have started considering to rely on their analytical capacity to regulate the myriads of market transactions occurring within and through them (so-called platform-to-business, or P2B transactions). Most of the time, the EU suggests recurring to light-tough disclosure duties. Hence, the European model falls short in rebalancing information asymmetry and unequal bargaining power plaguing the SMEs. In practice, the EU model consists either in pure delegation of self-regulatory powers (codes of conduct) or non-enforceable co-regulatory schemes (with technical standards established by the platforms themselves). Other models have been suggested that rely on the regulator's access to the platform's data (so called savvy and data-delegated options). These governance models present several limitations, making the platforms' role as regulatory intermediators little credible. In this scenario, the paper purports that a third option should be considered. In particular, to tackle the multifaceted risks associated with algorithmic decisions by digital platforms, while at the same time avoiding stifling innovation, it makes three suggestions: (1) also information disclosures should be done by an algorithm; (2) that is pre-tested in a co-regulatory process, that involves the regulator and stakeholders; and (3) enforced through legal and other empowerment tools, rather than sole fines
Business · Corporate governance · Delegation · Economics · Industrial organization · Information asymmetry · Management · Process (computing · Blockchain Technology Applications and Security · Computer Science · Digitalization, Law, and Regulation · Ethics and Social Impacts of AI · Finance
Smart Contracts, NFT Trading and Weaker Party Protection
The Role of Government in Regulating Ai for Economic Benefit
Algorithms for a new season? Mapping a decade of research on the artificial intelligence-driven digital transformation of public administration
Workers' perception of gig platform governance
The Networked Leviathan
Working the algorithm
Solutionism for the Many, Regulation for the Few
Governance and societal impact of blockchain-based self-sovereign identities
Framing governance for a contested emerging technology
Governance of artificial intelligence
Better safe than sorry? Digital campaigning governance in Germany
Global indicators and AI policy
The Googlization of Everything
The Open Corporation
Decentring Regulation
The Wrong Kind of Transparency
Digital Privacy
Seeing without knowing
What rules? Framing the governance of artificial agency
Constitutionalising Self‐Regulation
Governing the adoption of robotics and autonomous systems in long-term care in Singapore
Exploring the formal and informal roles of regulatory intermediaries in transnational multistakeholder regulation
Using Non‐Governmental Resources to Foster Regulatory Compliance
Regulator‐Required Corporate Compliance Program Audits
Theorizing Regulatory Intermediaries
Management-Based Regulation
| Citations per year | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2020 - 2026 (7) |
| Highly cited | No |