IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/telpol/v47y2023i3s0308596122001793.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Urman, Aleksandra
  • Makhortykh, Mykola

Abstract

Over 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Urman, Aleksandra & Makhortykh, Mykola, 2023. "How transparent are transparency reports? Comparative analysis of transparency reporting across online platforms," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:47:y:2023:i:3:s0308596122001793
    DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102477
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596122001793
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102477?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fox, Jonathan A, 2007. "The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability," Center for Global, International and Regional Studies, Working Paper Series qt8c25c3z4, Center for Global, International and Regional Studies, UC Santa Cruz.
    2. Heldt, Amélie, 2019. "Reading between the lines and the numbers: an analysis of the first NetzDG reports," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 8(2), pages 1-18.
    3. Bastian, Mariella & Makhortykh, Mykola & Harambam, Jaron & van Drunen, Max, 2020. "Explanations of news personalisation across countries and media types," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 9(4), pages 1-34.
    4. Liudmila Sivetc & Mariëlle Wijermars, 2021. "The Vulnerabilities of Trusted Notifier-Models in Russia: The Case of Netoscope," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(4), pages 27-38.
    5. Gillespie, Tarleton & Aufderheide, Patricia & Carmi, Elinor & Gerrard, Ysabel & Gorwa, Robert & Matamoros-Fernández, Ariadna & Roberts, Sarah T. & Sinnreich, Aram & Myers West, Sarah, 2020. "Expanding the debate about content moderation: Scholarly research agendas for the coming policy debates," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 9(4), pages 1-29.
    6. Jonathan Fox, 2007. "The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability," Development in Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4-5), pages 663-671.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hoeft, Leonard & Mill, Wladislaw, 2024. "Abuse of power," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 305-324.
    2. Gorwa, Robert, 2021. "Elections, institutions, and the regulatory politics of platform governance: The case of the German NetzDG," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6).
    3. Wei Jeng & Shih-Hung Wang & Hung-Wei Chen & Po-Wei Huang & Yu-Jen Chen & Hsu-Chun Hsiao, 2020. "A decentralized framework for cultivating research lifecycle transparency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, November.
    4. Griffin, Rachel, 2022. "New school speech regulation as a regulatory strategy against hate speech on social media: The case of Germany's NetzDG," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9).
    5. Gorwa, Robert, 2024. "The Politics of Platform Regulation: How Governments Shape Online Content Moderation," EconStor Books, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, number 299876, December.
    6. Meinel, Max-Gerrit, 2023. "Transparenz und organisationale Legitimität: Eine experimentelle Studie am Beispiel eines fiktiven Unternehmens [Transparency and organizational legitimacy: an experimental study based on a fictiti," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 8(4), pages 926-954.
    7. Gorwa, Robert, 2021. "Elections, Institutions, and the Regulatory Politics of Platform Governance: The Case of the German NetzDG," SocArXiv 2exrw, Center for Open Science.
    8. Mayskaya, Tatiana & Nikandrova, Arina, 2023. "The dark side of transparency: When hiding in plain sight works," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    9. Timothy Masuni Nagriwum & Wiredu Richard & Sufyan Sannah Gbolo & Matthew Kuunyig & Donkor Seth & Miranda Abeseyine Amokase, 2023. "Transparency and Accountability in Local Government Financial Management in Ghana: A Case of Sunyani West Municipal Assembly," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 7(9), pages 689-710, September.
    10. Ogbe, Michael & Lujala, Päivi, 2021. "Spatial crowdsourcing in natural resource revenue management," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    11. Dolata, Ulrich & Schrape, Jan-Felix, 2022. "Platform architectures: The structuration of platform companies on the Internet," Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, SOI Discussion Papers 2022-01, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies.
    12. Khirul Basar Mim & Tunmin (Catherine) Jai & Stacy H. Lee, 2022. "The Influence of Sustainable Positioning on eWOM and Brand Loyalty: Analysis of Credible Sources and Transparency Practices Based on the S-O-R Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, September.
    13. Tohari, Achmad & Parsons, Christopher & Rammohan, Anu, 2017. "Does Information Empower the Poor? Evidence from Indonesia's Social Security Card," IZA Discussion Papers 11137, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Carly Wayne & Roni Porat & Maya Tamir & Eran Halperin, 2016. "Rationalizing Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 60(8), pages 1473-1502, December.
    15. José Miguel Tirado-Beltrán & Iluminada Fuertes-Fuertes & J. David Cabedo, 2020. "Donor Reaction to Non-Financial Information Covering Social Projects in Nonprofits: A Spanish Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-17, December.
    16. Raghav Agarwal & Atharva Shirke & Nehajoan Panackal, 2020. "Enablers of the Collective Bargaining in Industrial Relations: A Study of India’s Industrial Policies Through ISM and MICMAC Analysis," The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Springer;The Indian Society of Labour Economics (ISLE), vol. 63(3), pages 781-798, September.
    17. Adrian V. Horodnic & Colin C. Williams & Răzvan Ionuț Drugă & Cristian Incaltarau, 2021. "Informal Payments by Patients in Central and Eastern Europe during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Institutional Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-17, October.
    18. Standing, André, 2014. "Ghana׳s extractive industries and community benefit sharing: The case for cash transfers," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 74-82.
    19. Adam S. Harris & Brigitte Seim & Rachel Sigman, 2020. "Information, accountability and perceptions of public sector programme success: A conjoint experiment among bureaucrats in Africa," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 38(5), pages 594-612, September.
    20. Mezei, Péter & Verteș-Olteanu, Andreea, 2020. "Editorial: From trust in the system to trust in the content," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 9(4), pages 1-28.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:47:y:2023:i:3:s0308596122001793. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30471/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.