How transparent are transparency reports? Comparative analysis of transparency reporting across online platforms

Bibliographic Data

ID21519299
AuthorsAleksandra Urman (0000-0003-3332-9294, University of Zurich, corresponding author), Mykola Makhortykh (0000-0001-7143-5317, University of Bern)
Year2023
Volume47
Issue3
Pages102477
Publication date2023-04-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueTelecommunications Policy (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0308-5961 • E-ISSN: 1879-3258
PublisherElsevier BV (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102477
OpenAlexW4313649548
LanguageEN
Citations received8
References cited24

Over the last decade, transparency reports have been adopted by most large information technology companies. These reports provide important information on the requests tech companies receive from state actors around the world and the ways they respond to these requests, including what content the companies remove from platforms they own. In theory, such reports shall make inner workings of companies more transparent, in particular with respect to their collaboration with state actors. They shall also allow users and external entities (e.g., researchers or watchdogs) to assess to what extent companies adhere to their own policies on user privacy and content moderation as well as to the principles formulated by global entities that advocate for the freedom of expression and privacy online such as the Global Network Initiative or Santa Clara Principles. However, whether the current state of transparency reports actually is conducive to meaningful transparency remains an open question. In this paper, we aim to address this through a critical comparative analysis of transparency reports using Santa Clara Principles 2.0 (SCP 2.0) as the main analytical framework. Specifically, we aim to make three contributions: first, we conduct a comparative analysis of the types of data disclosed by major tech companies and social media platforms in their transparency reports. The companies and platforms analyzed include Google (incl. YouTube), Microsoft (incl. its subsidiaries Github and LinkedIn), Apple, Meta (prev. Facebook), TikTok, Twitter, Snapchat, Pinterest, Reddit and Amazon (incl. subsidiary Twitch). Second, we evaluate to what degree the released information complies with SCP 2.0 and how it aligns with different purposes of transparency. Finally, we outline recommendations that could improve the level of transparency within the reports and beyond, and contextualize our recommendations with regard to the Digital Services Act (DSA) that received the final approval of the European Council in October 2022

Business · Computer security · Internet privacy · Moderation · Social media · World Wide Web · Computer Science · Ethics and Social Impacts of AI · Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection · Privacy, Security, and Data Protection

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access