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

cris.virtual.author-orcid0000-0003-3332-9294
cris.virtual.author-orcid0000-0001-7143-5317
cris.virtualsource.author-orcidd7e04fba-219d-416b-9eb9-18a2194ab6a9
cris.virtualsource.author-orcidc84686d4-ed4c-4a9a-8b82-e5683d89d9dc
dc.contributor.authorUrman, Aleksandra
dc.contributor.authorMakhortykh, Mykola
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-11T17:02:20Z
dc.date.available2024-10-11T17:02:20Z
dc.date.issued2023-04
dc.description.abstractOver 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.
dc.description.sponsorshipInstitut für Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft (ikmb)
dc.identifier.doi10.48350/172109
dc.identifier.publisherDOI10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102477
dc.identifier.urihttps://boris-portal.unibe.ch/handle/20.500.12422/86790
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.ispartofTelecommunications Policy
dc.relation.issn1879-3258
dc.relation.organizationDCD5A442BFA3E17DE0405C82790C4DE2
dc.subjecttransparency report
dc.subjecttransparency
dc.subjectonline platform
dc.subjectSanta Clara Principles
dc.subjectcompliance
dc.subjectcomparative analysis
dc.subjectregulation
dc.subjectDigital Services Act
dc.subjectAlphabet
dc.subjectMeta
dc.subjectTwitter
dc.subject.ddc000 - Computer science, knowledge & systems
dc.subject.ddc300 - Social sciences, sociology & anthropology
dc.subject.ddc300 - Social sciences, sociology & anthropology::340 - Law
dc.titleHow transparent are transparency reports? Comparative analysis of transparency reporting across online platforms
dc.typearticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
dspace.file.typetext
oaire.citation.issue3
oaire.citation.startPage102477
oaire.citation.volume47
oairecerif.author.affiliationInstitut für Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft (ikmb)
oairecerif.author.affiliationInstitut für Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft (ikmb)
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.date.licenseChanged2023-11-13 06:07:21
unibe.description.ispublishedpub
unibe.eprints.legacyId172109
unibe.refereedTRUE
unibe.subtype.articlejournal

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Name:
1-s2.0-S0308596122001793-main.pdf
Size:
1.04 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
File Type:
text
License:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Content:
published

Collections