Agents of platform governance: Analyzing U.S. civil society's role in contesting online content moderation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the role of civil society in shaping content moderation governance arrangements in the United States. Drawing on prior research that recognizes the importance of civil society in shaping policy, this article analyzes the experiences of civil society practitioners engaged in content moderation activism. Based on in-depth original interviews with civil society practitioners, I demonstrate how civil society's activity in this space aligns with known regulatory standard-setting process competencies and suggest advocacy work benefits from the power of coalition lobbying and social capital. Moreover, I highlight the sense of frustration from some practitioners that they are not compensated by firms for their monitoring and reporting work that improves platforms' products, and I offer preliminary reasons for why practitioners contest moderation norms. The paper's insights contribute to the study of platform governance by illuminating informal mechanisms utilized by civil society, which holds broader implications for understanding the dynamics of non-state actors in shaping online platforms and their policies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it