Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.22693/NIAIP.2022.29.3.048

The Politics of Internet Content Regulation in the U.S.: A Case Study on Communications Decency Act Section 230 Reform with New Institutionalist Approach  

Choi, Jaedong (BK21, Political Science, Yonsei University)
Publication Information
Informatization Policy / v.29, no.3, 2022 , pp. 48-60 More about this Journal
Abstract
This research analyzes the potential reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act through the new institutionalist approach. The immunity provision of the Section 230, which has developed the U.S. Internet content regulation regime and protected big tech firms, is facing a significant change today. The chambers of Congress have attempted to limit the immunity shield for platforms with bipartisanship. As a result of analysis through the perspective of historical institutionalism, a critical change could come from external events including fake news controversies and data privacy scandals, as well as endogenous factors such as conflicts among actors. The discussion deals with the possible direction of Internet content regulation reforms in Korea.
Keywords
Internet content regulation; CDA Section 230; new institutionalism; fake news; data privacy scandal; actor conflict;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Dwoskin, E. (2021). "Facebook's reversal on banning claims that covid-19 is man-made could unleash more anti-Asian sentiment." Washington Post, May 28.
2 Emmenegger P. (2021). "Agency in historical institutionalism: Coalitional work in the creation, maintenance, and change of institutions." Theory and Society, 50, 607-626.   DOI
3 Flew, T., Martin, F. & Suzor, N. (2019). "Internet regulation as media policy: Rethinking the question of digital communication platform governance." Journal of Digital Media & Policy, 10(1), 33-50.   DOI
4 Flick, D. (2017). "Combatting fake news: alternatives to limiting social media misinformation and rehabilitating quality journalism." Science and Technology Law Review, 20(2), 374-405.
5 Hacker, J. (2004). "Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state." American Political Science Review, 98, 243-260.   DOI
6 Hacker, J. & Pierson, P. (2014). "After the 'master theory': Downs, Schattschneider, and the rebirth of policy-focused analysis." Perspectives on Politics, 12(3): 643-662.   DOI
7 Hwang, S. (2010). "A Constitutional Study on the Internet and Election Campaign." Journal of Media Law, Ethics and Policy, 9(1), 177-229.
8 Ikenberry, J. (1988). "Conclusion: An Institutional Approach to American Foreign Economic Policy." International Organization, 42(1): 219-243.   DOI
9 Jung, K. (2022). "A Study of Restriction on Untrue Facts under the Public Officials Election Act." Study of Election, 16, 147-170.
10 Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Little, Brown and Company.
11 Krasner, S. (1984). "Approaches to the state." Comparative Politics, 16, 223-246.   DOI
12 Legeyt, C. (2022). "Congress must act to preserve the future of local journalism." The Hill, May 16.
13 Hall, P. & Taylor, R. (1996). "Political science and the three new institutionalisms." Political Studies, 44, 936-957.   DOI
14 Braun, J. & Eklund, J. (2019). "Fake News, Real Money: Ad Tech Platforms, Profit-Driven Hoaxes, and the Business of Journalism." Digital Journalism, 7(1), 1-21.   DOI
15 Chang, W. (2005). "The Policy of Contents Regulation on the Internet of EU." Journal of International Area Studies, 8(4), 3-33.   DOI
16 Congressional Research Service (2022). "Children and the Internet: Legal Considerations in Restricting Access to Content." CRS Report, March 14.
17 Flew, T. (2019). "The Platformized Internet: Issues for Internet Law and Policy." Journal of Internet Law, 3-16.
18 Gold, A. & McGill, M. (2021). "The fractured tech lobby's uphill battles." Axios, January 14.
19 Jones, B. & Baumgartner, F. (2005). The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20 Scott, R. (2014). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests and Identities. CA: Sage.
21 Senate Congressional Record. (2021). S.574. February 8.
22 Skorup, B. & Huddleston, J. (2020). "The erosion of publisher liability in American law, section 230, and the future of online curation." Oklahoma Law Review, 72(3), 635-673.
23 Soares, I. (2017). "The fake news machine: Inside a town gearing up for 2020." CNN Money, September 16.
24 Thelen, K. (2004). How institutions evolve. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25 Timmer, J. (2017). "Fighting falsity: Fake news, Facebook, and the first amendment." Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 35(3), 669-706.
26 US Congress https://www.congress.gov (Retrieved on June 5, 2022).
27 Chang, W., Gil, J., Kim, J., Min, H. & Choi, J. (2021). "Political Participation and Decision-Making in an Era of Digital Transformation and Innovations in Legislature and Party Politics." Broadcast and Communications Policy Studies, 2021-0-00008, 38-58.
28 Ahn, S. (2021). "The US response to fake news." 2021 International Media Law Research. Seoul: Press Arbitration Commission.
29 Capoccia, G. (2016). "When do institutions "bite"? Historical institutionalism and the politics of institutional change." Comparative Political Studies, 49(8), 1095-1127.   DOI
30 Capoccia, G. & Kelemen, D. (2007). "The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative, and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism." World Politics, 59, 341-369.   DOI
31 Congressional Records (2021). S574. February 8.
32 Culpepper, P. & Thelen, K. (2020). "Are We all Amazon Primed? Consumers and the Politics of Platform Power." Comparative Political Studies, 53(2), 288-318.   DOI
33 Napoli, P. (2021). "Back from the dead again: The specter of the Fairness Doctrine and its lesson for social media regulation." Policy & Internet, 13, 300-314.   DOI
34 Levi, M. (2008). "Reconsiderations of Rational Choice in Comparative and Historical Analysis." In Lichbach, M. & Zuckerman, A. (ed.) Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure, New York: Cambridge University Press.
35 MacCarthy, M. (2021). "Back to the future for Section 230 reform." Brookings, March 17.
36 Mahoney, J. & Thelen, K. (2010). Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37 Nieborg, D. & Helmond, A. (2019). "The political economy of Facebook's platformization in the mobile ecosystem: Facebook Messenger as a platform instance." Media, Culture, & Society, 41(2), 196-218.   DOI
38 OECD. (2021). Competition Issues concerning News Media and Digital Platforms, OECD Competition Committee Discussion Paper
39 Millhiser, I. (2022). "The Supreme Court shuts down Texas's attempt to seize control of social media - for now." Vox, May 31.
40 Mullin, J. (2021). "Changing Section 230 Won't Make the Internet a Kinder, Gentler Place." Electronic Frontier Foundation, June 17.
41 Park. A. (2019). "A Critical Perspective on Regulating 'Fake News' & Disinformation." Journal of Communication Research, 56(2), 113-155.   DOI
42 Powell, W. (1991). "Expanding the Scope of Institutional Analysis." In Powell, W. & DiMaggio, P. (ed.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43 Wagner, B. (2013). "Governing Internet Expression: How Public and Private Regulation Shape Expression Governance." Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 10, 389-403.   DOI
44 Roberts, C. & Geels, F. (2019). "Conditions for politically accelerated transitions: Historical institutionalism, the multi-level perspective, and two historical case studies in transport and agriculture." Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 140, 221-240.   DOI
45 Sabatier, P. & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). Theories of the Policy Process. Colorado: Westview Press.
46 Weisbaum, H. (2018). "Trust in Facebook has dropped by 66 percent since the Cambridge Analytica scandal." NBC News, April 19.
47 Kelly, H. & Guskin, E. (2021). "Americans widely distrust Facebook, TikTok and Instagram with their data, poll finds." Washington Post, December 22.