Regulating Digital Campaigning
The Need for Precision in Calls for Transparency
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21837589 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Katharine Dommett (0000-0003-0624-6610, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 432-449 |
| Publication date | 2020-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Policy & Internet (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1944-2866 • E-ISSN: 1944-2866 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/poi3.234 |
| OpenAlex | W3006071674 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 21 |
| References cited | 14 |
Calls for transparency have become a prominent response to the challenges of overseeing online political campaigning, however, use of this term by policymakers often lacks precision about what is desired and how impacts can be secured. This article examines key policy documents and debates around digital campaigning in the United Kingdom, in particular, calls by the Electoral Commission, Information Commissioner's Office, and DCMS Select Committee for increased transparency. It argues that current policy prescriptions for transparency lack important detail about the types of information required. Indeed, rather than advocating a common response, we find that policy actors have different desires for financial, source, data, and targeting transparency that are not easy to appreciate. They also often fail to specify the form of transparency that is desired, specifically in relation to the audience, discoverability, comprehensibility, reliability, and impact of the information to be rendered transparent. This represents a clear challenge for those seeking to promote transparency, making it hard to establish clear metrics against which policy proposals can be measured. Future calls for transparency should, therefore, take care to be more precise, and should clearly specify both the type and form of transparency being called for
Business · Commission · Computer security · Discoverability · Internet privacy · Political science · Public relations · World Wide Web · Computer Science · E-Government and Public Services · Law · Public Policy and Administration Research · Social Media and Politics
Conclusion
Introduction
The barriers to regulating the online world
Transparency for what purpose
The capricious relationship between technology and democracy
Securing Democracy
The more you know…? How disclosures, persuasion knowledge training, and political fit impact Cognitive processing of targeted political ads
Beyond Brexit? Public Participation in Decision-Making on Campaign Data During and After Referendum Campaigns
The regulatory ecosystem of data driven campaigning in the UK
Shielding citizens? Understanding the impact of political advertisement transparency information
The inter-institutional impact of digital platform companies on democracy
Campaign Deepfakes and Affective Polarization
Posting or Advertising? How Political Parties Adapt Their Messaging Strategies to Facebook’s Organic and Paid Media Affordances
The EU soft regulation of digital campaigning
Digital innovation in electoral campaigns
Better safe than sorry? Digital campaigning governance in Germany
Algocracias y crisis de legitimidad
Political participation in the digital technology era
Public understanding of Electoral Spending
Monitoring digital election campaigns
Online political adverts
What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance?
The Wrong Kind of Transparency
Varieties of Transparency
The Trouble with Transparency
Is Transparency the Best Disinfectant
Citizen Attitudes Toward Transparency in Local Government
Understanding modern transparency
Understanding the Complex Dynamics of Transparency
Years of Transparency Research
Transparency actually
Identifying transparency
Do transparent government agencies strengthen trust
| Unique citing works | 21 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 3,5 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2025 (6) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 19 |