12:00pm-1:30pm ET |
Broadcast and Digital Media |
|
|
Chair: Ira Wagman (Carleton University) Format: Pre-recorded presentations with live Q&A
This panel, led by Ira Wagman (Carleton University), will be focused around the various ways different actors (from traditional actors such as domestic broadcasters and film producers to recent entrants, such as powerful digital platforms like Netflix) engage with the institutions that regulate broadcasting in Canada. However, there are other interfaces with the policy apparatus that are worth considering, including those from the world of advocacy, multicultural broadcasting, and other components in the Canadian media landscape. This panel will explore top-down views of policymaking as well as bottom-up attempts to advocate for legitimacy within the policy process.
Presenters: Sherry Yu (University of Toronto) Paper Title: Canadian broadcasting and cultural diversity Paper Abstract: Canadian broadcasting is expected to represent multicultural and multiracial diversity through programming and employment, as stipulated in the 1991 Broadcasting Act. But what does diversity mean for Canadian broadcasting, specifically the governance of diversity? This presentation reviews the CRTC’s definition of ‘cultural diversity’ and explores some of the related policies and policy documents produced in the practice of governance. The focus of this review is on how these documents interpret and articulate cultural diversity, not on the effectiveness of outcomes, to explore the underlying position of stakeholders on cultural diversity.
Lowell Gasoi (Carleton University) Paper Title: Open media?: vernacular advocacy in Canadian media policy Paper Abstract: This paper, part of the panel "Broadcast and Digital Media," will argue for a localized perspective on interactions among artists,advocates, and the policy apparatus in Canada. Bill Kirkpatrick's "vernacular media policies" suggest the importance of thinking through media policies not as the rarified field of the state and corporate elites, but as bottom-up practices, even in the home. Des Freedman seeks a way to think beyond policy fetishism in linking policy study to that of media production. Taking the advocacy work of Open Media, and Quebec's English-Language Arts Network as case studies, Lowell will suggest our Innisian obsessed media policy studies can benefit from a more quotidian approach.
Daniel Keyes (University of British Columbia) Paper Title: The Canadian Media Fund and Google-YouTube's channel Encore+: Cancon's Archival Salvation or Digital Waste Bin? Paper Abstract: Despite the rise of over the top (OTT) internet streaming of audiovisual content, classic Canadian audiovisual content remains inaccessible. In 2017 in tune with Canada 150 celebrations, the Federal government announced a media policy where Canadian producers would work with big digital players like Netflix and Google/YouTube to promote Canadian content online. In 2017, Carolle Brabant, an executive at Telefilm heralded the creation of Encore+, a partnership between Telefilm, the Canadian Media Fund and Google/YouTube, as an “arsenal of discoverability” that would launch the likes of Mr. Dress Up (1966-1996) on the Internet for a new generation of viewers (“Back,” 2017). Journalists uniformly praised Encore+ as the long awaited realization of the lost treasures of Canadian content (Leblanc 2017; Brioux 2017; Canada Press 2017; Encore+,” 2017). Encore+ after its initial launch has faded from the attention of TV critics. These same critics who regularly review the new offering of CBC’s Gem, Netflix, etc. do not do so for Encore+. Despite this lack of print media attention as of 15 December 2019, Encore+ has 58000+ subscribers. Encore+ has gained an international audience for its old content that may see some old shows returned to production and the availability of long lost feature films like the first Canadian feature film directed by a woman Sylvia Spring’s Madeline Is, (1971). Encore+’s design operates as a fragmentary algorithmic archive that allows viewers to communally engage with old commercially abandoned content. Encore+ deviates from traditional television broadcast royalty schemes to remunerated directors, actors, and producers based on the number of views a particular film or episode garners. This talk explores the risks and rewards of using YouTube-Google to solve the conundrum of Canada’s fading audiovisual heritage.
Taeyoung Kim (Simon Fraser University) Paper Title: Cultural politics of Can-Con in SVOD market: A case study of Netflix Canada Paper Abstract: Media aggregation and distribution businesses face a massive restructuring due to the rise of online streaming services (Doyle, 2016). Audiovisual streaming service providers like Amazon Prime, Hulu and Netflix grow their market shares in the global market and reform the business structure of the industry. In contrast, the number of television viewers and pay-per-view subscribers is in decline due to the rise of SVOD and preferences of young audiences on these aggregation platforms. That said, they have been often used to explain the global homogeneity in the digital entertainment media market and represent the continuing power of US contents and platforms in the cultural industries (Wayne, 2017). Meanwhile, the penetration of foreign streaming platforms has provoked serious controversies in Canadian society and has challenged a series of major pillars of the state’s cultural policies such as cultural sovereignty and net neutrality, etc. (Taras, 2015). Moreover, the federal government’s recent agreement with Netflix which would suspend the collection of ‘Netflix tax’ in reward for Netflix’s investment on Canadian cultural entrepreneurs triggered strong backlashes from Québec, whose cultural policies have come in conflict with the federal government. Combined with a series of the state’s recent trade negotiations, such changes in the distribution market question the future of Canadian content. Against such a backdrop, this study examines how the Canadian state responds to the penetration of foreign SVOD services and how it has understood Netflix in its policy measures to find the discursive dynamics of the state’s platform policies, which are outcomes of the nexus between neoliberal globalization and the state’s long-standing principles such as the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunication Commission (CRTC)’s policies on promoting Canadian Content (CanCon), and the government’s arguments of cultural exemption. Based on documents released by the Ministry of Canadian Heritage and CRTC from 2009 to 2019, it traces the how the federal government has recognized this new service provider and its streaming services and its underlying meanings. The findings of this study are expected to shed lights on the complex relationship between the global streaming platform and major stakeholders in the Canadian cultural industries: as both threats to the domestic distribution market and opportunities for its cultural creators.
Geneva Nam (Simon Fraser University) Paper Title: Digital streaming and new media: the future of Canadian broadcast Paper Abstract: In 2018 the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) released a study on Canadian broadcast and discussed the critical shift in Canadian viewership from traditional cable systems to digital streaming services. The CRTC titled the study “Harnessing Change: The Future of Programming Distribution”. In its analysis the CRTC identified key gaps in Canadian English and French market viewership that indicated a decline in Canadian cable package purchases—draining this viewership are the new media platforms and private digital streaming sites available over the Internet. Canadian Broadcasting policy has maintained its support in favour of Canadian content and are able to control viewership through licensing renewals and evaluations. Building on existing frameworks of ‘new media’ as influential mediascapes by D. Winseck that challenge the existing flows of media content. The CRTC has determined to uphold its policy of net neutrality, yet by not regulating the Internet, audiences are free to consume content outside of the Canadian television broadcasting framework. Based on a detailed analysis of the 2018 CRTC study, how can Canada navigate a net neutral streaming environment while still upholding its Canadian content goals? The results indicate that while the CRTC navigates the shifting new media landscape, supporting policies to support Canadian content creators on new platforms, incentives for digital streaming site investment in Canadian media industry and policy reform for business practices for businesses operating sites in Canada are key factors in fostering a positive Canadian new media environment. Further research is needed to identify other factors to strengthen policy in favour of Canadian content while accommodating changes in viewership to Internet based streaming.
Steven James May (Humber College) Paper Title: A Learning Opportunity by TVOntario Paper Abstract: This paper features analysis of research findings related to the role that the digital over-the-air (OTA) television transmitters owned and operated by the Ontario Educational Communications Authority (known as TVOntario or TVO) play in the provision of access to the provincial educational television broadcaster’s programming. Sparked by a short-lived plan by TVO in 2017 to reduce its slate of nine digital OTA transmitters to a single OTA transmitter broadcasting from Toronto’s CN Tower, this article examines why some Ontarians continue to turn to TVO’s digital OTA broadcast signals for access to the broadcaster’s educational content and how such viewing serves to inform the future digital dissemination of educational television programming. While the Canadian government and the province of Ontario each announced in November 2020 additional support to improve broadband internet availability in Ontario during the COVID-19 pandemic, TVO’s slate of eight OTA transmitters located outside Toronto continue supplying no-fee, high-definition, educational television programming access to Ontarians who reside outside of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and who are without 50/10 Mbps internet in the meantime. In light of TVO’s expanded distance education duties assigned by the Ontario government in July 2020 amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Canadian government’s recently announced proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Act under Bill C-10, it is an appropriate moment to examine the quality of digital access to TVO across Ontario and how the educational broadcaster might best make its materials available. The access concerns and realities shared by the interviewed research participants featured here helped to inform analysis of their collective insight and the identification of TVO access concern themes related to infrastructure, monetary concerns, educational programming concerns, and non-GTA geographic concerns.
|
Platform Governance: Media Policy or Telecoms Regulation as Guide? |
|
|
Chair: Dwayne Winseck (Carleton University) Format: Live
Dwayne Winseck (Carleton) will organize a panel that challenges the impulse amongst many observers to reach for media policy as a touchstone for platform regulation. This panel will ask, instead, whether telecoms regulation might offer a better guide; telecommunications regulation has a long legacy of bright light rules governing market dominance, data and privacy protection, and common technical standards for interfaces and interconnection that open up the blackbox of complex technical systems. Telecoms regulation can ensure that freedom of expression and other normative goals triumph over those of the owners of complex technical systems in regulating illegal content.
Presenters: Dwayne Winseck (Carleton University) Paper Title: Digital Platforms are Not Media Companies: Telecoms Regulation as a Guide to Platform Regulation Paper Abstract: Public inquiries around the world are casting a critical eye on the economic and political clout of digital platforms, asking what---if anything---should be done to bring them under effective regulatory control. They are also blamed for destroying the commercial basis of journalism and entertainment media and for their corrosive impact on democracy and public culture. This paper acknowledges that the digital behemoths have considerable power but argues that such assertions are often overwrought and based on shaky evidence. Further, critics who point to the effects of "harmful content" and disinformation campaigns to justify calls to regulate platforms as media companies too often conflate reach with impact. Ultimately, this paper argues that rather than turning to media regulation, the focus of telecoms regulation on constraining market power, unbundling control over networks from control over content, enforcing common technical standards in order to open up the blackbox of complex technical systems and putting people's communication rights first over the owners of these complex technical systems might be a better guide.
David Nieborg (University of Toronto) Paper Title: Platform governance and cultural production Paper Abstract: The increasingly central role of major platform companies---Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon---in the media industries, as well as other parts of the economy, has triggered renewed concerns about media concentration. We argue that platforms signal a qualitative shift that cannot be measured in economic terms alone. Similar to their integrated incumbent counterparts, platform companies not only host cultural products, but also a variety of services, including app stores, cloud hosting, and digital advertising. We suggest that it is through these "infrastructural platform services" that cultural producers and a wide range of other third parties become dependent on platform companies. Thus, to study digital dominance, we need to investigate how such relations of interdependence take shape in processes of cultural production. We suggest how this can be done through a careful examination of financial data as well as platform documentation on application programming interfaces (APIs), software development kits (SDKs), and user and developer agreements. The authors of this paper are David Nieborg with Thomas Poell and José van Dijck.
Jonathan Obar (York University) Paper Title: The Governance of Social Media: Revisiting the Special Issue Paper Abstract: In 2015, I co-edited a special issue of Telecommunications Policy entitled “The Governance of Social Media”. Contributors to the issue included some of the leading scholars of internet governance, including Laura DeNardis, Philip Napoli, Milton Mueller and others. Now almost five-years since the issue was published, many of the ideas presented require revisiting. Beginning with the editorial, questions about whether new law or regulation is necessary, or whether existing policy is useful will introduce the discussion. Certainly in the privacy context it is clear that calls for the former are growing, while evidence of the latter wanes. To help reveal this particular platform governance challenge, the contribution “Internet Governance by Social Media Platforms”, by DeNardis and Hackl is revisited, and their argument that platforms, primarily via design and policy choices demonstrate the strongest examples of pragmatic-while-problematic internet governance. Expanding upon the problems identified by DeNardis and Hackl, Philip Napoli’s contribution “Social Media and the Public Interest” will also be revisited, emphasizing how traditional regulatory concepts might guide new approaches to policy in an attempt to move regulators away from problematic self-governance models. The extent to which the public interest concept can be mapped onto the current internet governance debate will be considered, suggesting that while normative regulatory philosophy borrowed from the broadcasting era might be useful, challenges of definition and jurisdiction are problematic. Lastly, Milton Mueller’s contribution on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which directly addresses the internet governance role of platforms, will connect the commentary on the future of platform governance to the fake news challenge. This will attempt to present another example of how the debate over the limitations and possibilities of platforms in the internet governance space must be clarified.
Dana Cramer (University of Calgary) Paper Title: Internets: The changing relevance of Internet Protocols in next generation broadband networks Paper Abstract: In 2020 two events dramatically shaped the evolution of internet infrastructure development. The first, as obvious, was the COVID-19 pandemic. The transition of work from home led to the high awareness of the public’s need for broadband infrastructure as critical infrastructure. The second event, which has not been publicized other than in pockets of information technologies circles, is the submission and lobbying campaign to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) by China for a ‘New Internet Protocol.’ The ‘New Internet Protocol’ as it is named under ITU submission filings, is a proposal for a new set of technical standards for the ongoing development of 5G/6G—and so on—broadband technologies. This new suite of protocols would not work in tandem with the existing Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) suite which the internet is currently built on, but instead will make an entirely new internet for this next generation network. Hence, our global networked society is on the cusp of ‘internets’ opposed to a singular internet. Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications manufacturer, which increasingly has had their 5G equipment banned in Five Eyes countries due to privacy and spying concerns, has responded to worries over the ‘New Internet Protocol’ with a marketing campaign of ‘ManyNets.’ In the ManyNets campaign, they have argued for the need of a new suite of technical specifications of THz data transfers for meeting the needs of a 2030 internet environment, as well have attacked journalists reporting on this manner. This presentation will identify the changing landscape of the internet’s infrastructure and the position Canada may take in protecting our domestic interest through the international internet standardization process.
Lianrui Jia (University of Toronto Scarborough) Paper Title: Disrupting platform power: regulation of Apple App Store in China Paper Abstract: App stores, such as Google’s Play Store and Apple’s App Store, are key sites where digital platforms operationalize their power in deciding what gets distributed, under what conditions, and to whom. They constitute infrastructural platform services that facilitate the circulation of cultural content by setting the price, terms and conditions of distribution, and the technical standards of privacy protection (Greene & Shilton, 2018; van Dijck, Nieborg, & Poell, 2019). Because of this gatekeeping role, app stores are key sites to study platform governance. They serve as the vital techno-economic infrastructure upon which digital platforms, such as Google, Apple, and Tencent, have built their ecosystems (Dieter et al., 2019). China has a lucrative and one of the largest app markets in terms of app developers, app users and app store operators. To give a sense of their economic might, in 2018, China’s market for apps reached $23.6 billion, nearly one fifth of the world’s total (iResearch, 2018). China’s app stores are markedly different from the West. With Google’s exit from mainland China in 2010, China is one of the few markets where Google Play and Apple App Store do not form a tight duopoly. Instead, China’s app store market is much more diverse and chaotic, featuring device manufacture app stores (Huawei, Xiaomi, Vivo), app stores owned and operated by internet companies (Tencent MyApp, 91 Wireless, Qihoo) and telecommunication operators (China Telecom and China Mobile). With the emergence of such a dynamic market, the Chinese government has taken steps to devise a holistic regulatory framework of app stores, including a set of licensing rules, app registration and audit, as well as data localization. This paper examines the regulation of U.S-owned and -operated Apple App Store in China. In particular, this paper looks at how state power intersects and interjects platform power in app store regulation through analyzing three key processes: app review, app takedown, and data localization. It is argued that the regulation of Apple App Store in China crystalizes the contestations and clashes between the expansion of U.S platform power on the one hand, and the Chinese national regime of internet regulation and governance agenda, on the other. Analyzing how Apple App Store is governed both by platform owners and government institutions in China showcases how platform governance is localized in various jurisdictions and global geopolitics. In sum, this paper contributes to a multileveled understanding of platform power (from a company level to geopolitical level) (Nieborg, van Dijck, & Poell, 2019) as they expand beyond their respective geopolitical spheres.
|
Music, Platforms, and the Pandemic: How do we go forward? How can policy help? |
|
|
Chair: Christina Baade (McMaster University) Format: Live
This panel examines the impact of the pandemic on Canadian music making, music institutions and industries, and musical livelihoods—and how musicians and music communities are responding. The panelists will take up two key lines of inquiry: 1) What has been the role of online platforms in pandemic musical life? How have musicians used platforms to sustain communities and livelihoods? How has the turn to platforms strengthened corporate power (what corporations? what sorts of power?)? How have platforms in the pandemic reinforced and/or challenged longstanding inequalities in music cultures and industries. 2) As we look toward life after the pandemic, what do musicians and others involved in musicking need? What have been the limitations of cultural and media policy in Canada before the pandemic? What sorts of policy would help musicians, including those from marginalized communities and equity seeking groups, survive and thrive?
Participants:
|
1:30pm-1:45pm ET |
Break |
1:45pm-3:15pm ET |
Transformations in arts and media policy: from 2019 to 2021 via COVID-19 |
|
|
Chair: Mary Elizabeth Luka (University of Toronto) Format: Live
Eighteen months after more than 120 cultural leaders convened at the Banff Centre for Arts & Creativity for the Digital Transformation Summit, this roundtable will come together to examine what has changed strategically since then in the debate over digitizing the creative industries and culture sector. Once the COVID-19 pandemic took hold, digital infrastructure priorities and processes—and related policy implications including media and arts funding programs—rapidly shifted at all the organizations represented at Banff. The Summit’s aspirational language reflects nation-state building approach that has been used in policy-based documents by many federal regulatory or funding bodies over the years (including the Canada Council for the Arts, the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission, the Department of Canadian Heritage and others): Together we will absorb big questions around big data, delve into discoverability, and explore relationships with rapidly evolving audiences...We will encounter Indigenous views and practices, and explore how Indigenous voices inform our digital landscapes. We will seek to understand how Canada’s digital arts opportunity connects to larger strategies for our nation as a whole. Even now, this language permeates funding, legislative and production/distribution systems and strategies in an increasingly platformized world. And while the 2019 Banff Summit attempted to focus on how a vaguely defined ‘digital transformation’ was playing out in the cultural sector, the many conversations begun there were quickly superseded by global events, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the surge in social movements such as Black Lives Matter, and a complete rethink of Federal and other funding programs. In format, the Summit reflected a hybrid approach that was neither academic (where most attendees present a formal paper) nor the TED-talk corporatized approach often taken in the creative industries (where thousands of attendees come to hear financially successful emerging or established thought leaders perform their ideas), nor an art exhibition or performance (even though several industry-leading artworks were also on display, and performances were built into the evenings of the Summit). It is worth noting that the Banff sessions quickly evolved into a series of onsite intensive discussions about social engineering (how to change the field and society), and community engagement (how to involve people in the arts, culture and media, whether as audiences, citizens, makers or more). While feedback during and after the Summit noted that there was no funding provided to subsidize artistic, non-profit or civic actors to attend the event itself, none of the hybrid ways of convening on a face-to-face basis experienced at Banff could be undertaken at all in the year that followed. Indeed, the debate over access was superseded by the massive shift to online convening that followed just a few months later. As we look forward to coming together virtually in Hamilton in May 2021, the global shift that happened in the time since the Summit provides a new set of lenses to reflect not just on whether gatherings such as the Banff Summit are as accessible as they could be, but whether the sector as a whole will continue to move towards a more inclusive and culturally engaged world through the strategic shifts in digital platformization that we have experienced throughout 2020. Are we in a position to better understand how advocacy, artistic and social justice approaches are being mobilized to intervene in varied relationships among artists, culture makers, citizens, Indigenous knowledge, and media and communications systems? How has this shifted since the Summit? How might the innovations and experiments of the last year be used to engender sector transformations that might actually have more to do with community building and decolonization (outward facing relationship-building) than with simpler but still crucial professionalization and literacy questions about digital infrastructures, platforms and tools (inward facing structural engagement)?
Participants:
- Michelle Van Beusekom (Senior Advisor, Isuma Collective; former ED, English Programming, National Film Board of Canada)
- Lise Ann Johnson (Director, Strategic Granting Initiative, Canada Council for the Arts)
- Mary Elizabeth Luka (Assistant Professor, Arts & Media Management, University of Toronto)
- Charlie Wall-Andrews (PhD student, Ryerson University and Executive Director, SOCAN Foundation)
- Jennifer Wemigwams (University of Toronto)
- Kelly Wilhelm (Chief Strategy Officer, Canada Media Fund)
|
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and digital platforms |
|
|
Chair: Philip Savage (McMaster University) Format: Live
Led by Philip Savage (McMaster), this panel will discuss the various relationships (of content dissemination, video and audio distribution, and advertising) between Canada’s national public broadcaster and digital platforms, including Facebook and Netflix.
Presenters: Philip Savage (McMaster University) Paper Title: The CBC and Public Service Media Universalism: An International Comparison Paper Abstract: An analysis of the range international of public service media (PSM) approaches to universal program and service provision around the world (c.f. UK, USA, Russia, Japan, Germany, Netherland and Canada). To what degree and how do different PSM digital forms and platforms, and their attendant content development and distribution respect the diversity of the unique affordances provided? And in doing so how do they maintain sufficient degrees of cohesion, trustworthiness, fairness, and inclusion that remain the professed universalist obligation of public service media?
David Skinner, Miles Weafer and Amanda Oye (York University) Paper Title: Living On-line: Platformization and the CBC (Presenter: Miles Weafer) Paper Abstract: This presentation explores CBC’s engagement with the field of digital media platforms and the relationships between these efforts and its mandate. Relationships with dominant platforms such as Facebook, Spotify, YouTube, iTunes and the App Store are considered as well as the Corporation’s own efforts to establish itself as a public service media platform. Key questions explored include: What kinds of relationships does CBC have with media platforms? What kinds of policies does it have with regard to these platforms? What kinds of presence does CBC have on these platforms? How is that presence supported? How does that presence relate to the Corporation’s mandate?
Lizzie Jackson (London South Bank University) Paper Title: To be Seen and Heard is to be Datafied: Public Service Media 3.0 Paper Abstract: Speaking to the interaction between public service media and technology clusters around the world, with an analysis of the case study of the CBC in developing various platforms approaches for new and other content in local CBC operations in Toronto and Hamilton. It is proposed that datafication enables media to be delivered to audiences in fluid multi-way recombination for universal and individual or group consumption that can be live or independent of time or platform. This is dependent on having an adaptive organisational structure to support such data flows. The argument is made for‘Public Service 3.0’, a twenty-first century version of public service media.
Daniel Bernhard (Centre for International Governance Innovation) Paper Title: Organisational Cultures for Datification and Platform Fluidity in Public Service Media Paper Abstract: Overview of the developments in citizen engagement and lobbying by public interest groups and media users, relative to the access to and affordability of private and public digital media services and content available to citizens and consumers. The discussion looks to the role and tactics that are effective in providing input and oversight to a range of users across regions and levels of accessibility to new digital media, including that provided by the national public service provider, CBC-Radio-Canada.
Christopher Cwynar (Defiance College) Paper Title: Podcasting, Platformization, and the Future of the CBC Paper Abstract: This paper endeavours to understand the CBC’s position in a rapidly shifting mediascape through the institution’s engagement with the emerging medium of podcasting. Using discourse and textual analysis, it argues that the CBC’s engagement with podcasting is emblematic of the tensions within the institution between public service and commercial imperatives. Podcasting appears to offer the CBC the means to potentially revitalize its radio division, an historical strength with respect to its fulfillment of its national public service mandate, to better serve domestic stakeholders. At the same time, the financial pressures on the CBC, and the evolution of the medium and its platforms, are clearly pushing its podcasting and audio media operations toward the commercial marketplace in a manner that threatens to undermine their legitimacy. This paper builds this argument through an historical sketch of CBC radio, an examination of the division’s engagement with podcasting from its earliest forays to the Tandem fiasco, and implications of the platformization of podcasting for the CBC. It concludes with some brief policy recommendations drawn from the CBC’s engagement with podcasting, the emergence of major audio platforms like Spotify, and the institution’s need to adapt to the networked digital media paradigm.
|
Digital Culture and Algorithmic Governance |
|
|
Chair: Sara Bannerman (McMaster University) Format: Pre-recorded with live Q&A
Presenters: Alex Mayhew (Western University) Paper Title: Social Selection of Algorithms Paper Abstract: Increasingly algorithms are being used to govern complex decisions, such as criminal sentencing and insurance premiums. The increasing influence of algorithms has brought the question of algorithmic bias to prominent attention. If the data we generate to power the algorithms captures our prejudices, then it is little surprise that algorithms themselves reproduce those same prejudices. Worse still, at the moment most algorithms are blackboxs, leaving this bias hidden. One potential response to this challenge is Explainable AI (XAI): often these are algorithms that analyze other algorithms and explain their ‘reasoning’, exposing the hidden bias and enabling us to respond. While this is a promising approach, it poses its own challenges. Obviously any XAI system would itself be an algorithm, subject to prejudiced data and biased outcomes. But the case of XAI reveals another challenge. Like any software, XAI systems will increasingly exist as a population, with future versions preferentially based on particular versions of XAIs under use in the previous generation. This creates an evolutionary environment where the selection of each generation is influenced by nebulous social measures, like user satisfaction or mollification. Cognitive Science has shown us that humans typically prefer coherence over truth. This could result in the XAI optimizing for what is convincing instead of what is true, without anyone intending such an outcome. As computer system designers well know, the machine does what you tell it to do, not what you want it to do. In this case the ‘telling’ is not an intentional act. Compounding the problem, in this case it is possible to still generate results that are superficially acceptable to the stakeholders of the system. The evolutionary perspective can be helpful in framing and understanding some of the challenges surrounding XAI.
Fenwick McKelvey and Robert Hunt (Concordia University) (Robert Hunt presenting) Paper Title: Algorithmic Regulation in the Era of Platform Governance Paper Abstract: In 2017, YouTube re-built its artificially intelligent (AI) recommendation algorithm “to maximize users’ engagement over time by predicting which recommendations would expand their tastes and get them to watch not just one more video but many more” (Roose, 2019). According to the New York Times, Reinforce, YouTube's new reinforcement learning-driven recommender, changed which videos the site suggested to viewers and arguably led them to watch more extreme videos. We argue that deploying Reinforce was as much an act of cultural and media policymaking as an act of programming. Platforms rely on AI algorithms to filter, rank, recommend, sort, classify, and promote information and content. Unlike the debatable but public policies that motivate governments, these black-boxed algorithmic regulations are driven by inscrutable, profit-oriented optimizations, leaving this emerging area of cultural policy largely unaccountable. Our paper provides a framework for evaluating the barriers to holding algorithms accountable as instruments of cultural policy. Drawing on cultural studies’ use of circuits and moments to interpret culture, we identify three moments—input, code, and context—to evaluate how different algorithms act as cultural and media policy. These moments do not simply offer the chance to make algorithmic governance transparent, but provide opportunities to situate algorithms within larger systems of power and structural inequity. Building on our analytical framework, we conclude by offering recommendations for policymakers and other stakeholders to begin to address the algorithmic regulation of culture. We provide suggestions for governments (either national or international governmental organizations), cultural institutions (such as civil society, independent public media, or unions of cultural workers) and technology and media firms (such as content platforms and social media companies).
James Meese (RMIT University) Paper Title: News, algorithms and regulatory responses in Australia and Europe Paper Abstract: The ability of social media platforms to independently adjust their recommender systems and preference certain types of content over others has been an issue of ongoing concern, particularly with respect to journalism. Scholars, policymakers and the media industry have been increasingly worried about the critical gatekeeping role that platforms play, and whether the provision of platform metrics influences how journalism is produced (Tandoc Jr. 2014). In recent years, this concern has turned into action. Regional groupings and individual countries have introduced a number of regulatory interventions to regulate recommender systems and other forms of algorithmic distribution. The leading reform agenda has arguably emerged from the European Union through the proposed Digital Services Act. The Act requires specified platforms to outline “the main parameters of their recommender system are and the options for users to modify or influence those parameters” (Helberger 2021). Australia has also embraced some sort of enforced transparency through its News Media Bargaining Code. The reform introduced a standard that required platforms to give news outlets advance notification of algorithm changes if it affected referral traffic to news content. Other interventions address algorithmic distribution from the perspective of media diversity. Both Germany and Australia also have introduced non-discrimination requirements that requires platforms that are deemed large enough to not unfairly discriminate between news outlets (Nelson and Jaursch 2020). Elsewhere in Russia, a reform attempts to make algorithmic systems responsible for the circulation of ‘fake news’, but this law operates within a fraught political context. In this paper, I outline these reforms, develop a taxonomy of the dominant regulatory approaches and assess their effectiveness.
Charlotte Panneton (Western University) Paper Title: Regulating Twitch.tv: Prefiguring the Policy Implications of Game-Oriented Live-Streaming Paper Abstract: Amazon’s Twitch.tv is a gaming-oriented, online live-streaming platform that enable users to broadcast/stream themselves playing video games and interact with viewers for free and in real-time. Twitch is branded as an interest-specific alternative to traditional broadcast media, catering to niche audiences centered around video games and e-sports. However, the emergence and growth of Twitch, and platforms like it, have challenged existing understandings of ownership, intellectual property and fair use related to user-generated content. Game-oriented live-streaming platforms complicate the legal and regulatory precedents set by more generalized, video-sharing platforms such as YouTube. This is namely due to, one, the position they occupy within the video game industry and, two, their technical features. Twitch has become central to the operation of competitive gaming (e-sports) and the promotional initiatives of game developers and publishers. Further, the live-streaming affordances of these platforms pose their own difficulties with regards to content regulation and moderation. The aim of this presentation is to highlight the multitude of legal ‘grey-areas’ involved in the use of gaming-oriented live-streaming platforms. This presentation will describe the commercial and technical dimensions of Twitch, addressing its ownership structure, its partnerships within the video game industry, and its user activity. Ultimately, the goal of this presentation is to problematize notions of intellectual property and copyright as they manifest on Twitch, and to incite a discussion about the potential role of cultural policy in the advent of these complex media platforms.
Sara Bannerman, Emmanuel Appiah, Fizza Kulvi, and Charnjot Shokar (McMaster University) Paper Title: Platform lobbying and relational sovereignty in Canada Paper Abstract: This paper examines the relationship between digital platforms and the Canadian government. Drawing on the concepts of relationality and relational sovereignty outlined in part one, it examines the complex interactions between the Canadian government and digital platforms (Amazon, Facebook, Google and its sister company Sidewalk Labs, Netflix, and Twitter), highlighting the ways that digital platforms are simultaneously the objects of regulation, stakeholders and lobbyists in shaping regulation, and tools used in regulation and government service provision. Our examination is based on records contained in the Canadian lobbying registry and a large corpus of government documents obtained via access to information requests; our method is outlined in part two. In part three, we present an overview of the interactions between the Canadian government and digital platforms between 2008 and the present, drawing on records in the lobbying registry and our corpus of access to information documents. We find that many areas of federal regulation and governance are increasingly mediated by digital platforms. We note growing numbers of meetings and involvements between foreign digital platforms and government officials. We see that platforms provide knowledge to government that is required to regulate or govern (Beretta 2020, 142). We find that platforms influence regulations, or play a role in regulation, beyond simple lobbying.
|