Independent advisor and visiting academic at Oxford Internet Institute. Working on regulatory innovation, the platform economy, intermediary liability and Internet safety.
The Internet has radically altered the dynamics of corporate reputation formation and management.... more The Internet has radically altered the dynamics of corporate reputation formation and management. In the growing hubbub of consumer, media and activist dissection of corporate behaviour, companies are finding it increasingly difficult to make their voices heard. By creating newly accessible channels of communication and organisation, the Internet has shifted the balance of power of “voice”. The result is that corporate reputations are increasingly defined not by what companies do or say, but by how others perceive and respond to their actions and words. This paper argues that the underlying challenge facing reputation managers is that traditional conceptions of corporate communications and corporate relations are unsuited to the developing online environment. Effective online corporate reputation management requires companies to develop new relationships with their online stakeholders, with very different characteristics from traditional top-down communications models. The paper con...
Like all markets, online platforms need rules. Their rules are both explicit, in the form of community standards, moderator guidelines, terms of use, commercial contracts and policies, and implicit, in the code that shapes their interfaces and the algorithms that bring market participants together. When platforms govern the exchange of news, content and speech, their rules raise profound issues of human rights and public welfare. Online platforms are not publishers, but neither are they neutral conduits; their role in governing online content markets has inevitable ethical connotations.
This paper argues that making intermediaries liable for content they host is not an appropriate solution to the harms arising from the free flow of information online. Policymakers must use new techniques to evaluate and engage with intermediaries’ rule-making activities. Since the nature and effects of intermediaries’ rules are often hard to assess, policymakers increasingly seek their ‘procedural accountability’.
This paper considers the development of digital platforms, their economic role and the policy app... more This paper considers the development of digital platforms, their economic role and the policy approach which should apply to them. Digital platforms are heterogeneous, so no flavour of ‘platform regulation’ is likely to be appropriate across all platforms, whilst horizontal laws apply to platform and other business models alike. However, a unifying theme in relation to platforms is that they provide market governance via codes of conduct and software code. Rather than thinking of law as something that should simply be imposed on the market, we should therefore search for an accommodation or balance between law and 'code', given that they both provide governance.
This paper considers policy options regarding illegal and harmful content online. Funded by Sky, ... more This paper considers policy options regarding illegal and harmful content online. Funded by Sky, it was written as a submission to the UK Government's white paper on Internet safety. It proposes that governments should establish a statutory regime for oversight and accountability of online platforms’ handling of harmful and illegal content. Bunting identifies three goals of regulation: to clarify what consumers should expect from online platforms; ensure platforms’ handling of content is proportionate, accountable, fair and responsible; verify that particular platforms act proportionately to evidence of harm. Most ‘content regulation’ should be done by platforms themselves, as it is today, but the paper proposes that an oversight body – either industry-led or statutory - be established to assess their effectiveness and identify where more action is needed.
The Internet has radically altered the dynamics of corporate reputation formation and management.... more The Internet has radically altered the dynamics of corporate reputation formation and management. In the growing hubbub of consumer, media and activist dissection of corporate behaviour, companies are finding it increasingly difficult to make their voices heard. By creating newly accessible channels of communication and organisation, the Internet has shifted the balance of power of “voice”. The result is that corporate reputations are increasingly defined not by what companies do or say, but by how others perceive and respond to their actions and words. This paper argues that the underlying challenge facing reputation managers is that traditional conceptions of corporate communications and corporate relations are unsuited to the developing online environment. Effective online corporate reputation management requires companies to develop new relationships with their online stakeholders, with very different characteristics from traditional top-down communications models. The paper con...
Like all markets, online platforms need rules. Their rules are both explicit, in the form of community standards, moderator guidelines, terms of use, commercial contracts and policies, and implicit, in the code that shapes their interfaces and the algorithms that bring market participants together. When platforms govern the exchange of news, content and speech, their rules raise profound issues of human rights and public welfare. Online platforms are not publishers, but neither are they neutral conduits; their role in governing online content markets has inevitable ethical connotations.
This paper argues that making intermediaries liable for content they host is not an appropriate solution to the harms arising from the free flow of information online. Policymakers must use new techniques to evaluate and engage with intermediaries’ rule-making activities. Since the nature and effects of intermediaries’ rules are often hard to assess, policymakers increasingly seek their ‘procedural accountability’.
This paper considers the development of digital platforms, their economic role and the policy app... more This paper considers the development of digital platforms, their economic role and the policy approach which should apply to them. Digital platforms are heterogeneous, so no flavour of ‘platform regulation’ is likely to be appropriate across all platforms, whilst horizontal laws apply to platform and other business models alike. However, a unifying theme in relation to platforms is that they provide market governance via codes of conduct and software code. Rather than thinking of law as something that should simply be imposed on the market, we should therefore search for an accommodation or balance between law and 'code', given that they both provide governance.
This paper considers policy options regarding illegal and harmful content online. Funded by Sky, ... more This paper considers policy options regarding illegal and harmful content online. Funded by Sky, it was written as a submission to the UK Government's white paper on Internet safety. It proposes that governments should establish a statutory regime for oversight and accountability of online platforms’ handling of harmful and illegal content. Bunting identifies three goals of regulation: to clarify what consumers should expect from online platforms; ensure platforms’ handling of content is proportionate, accountable, fair and responsible; verify that particular platforms act proportionately to evidence of harm. Most ‘content regulation’ should be done by platforms themselves, as it is today, but the paper proposes that an oversight body – either industry-led or statutory - be established to assess their effectiveness and identify where more action is needed.
Uploads
Papers by Mark Bunting
Like all markets, online platforms need rules. Their rules are both explicit, in the form of community standards, moderator guidelines, terms of use, commercial contracts and policies, and implicit, in the code that shapes their interfaces and the algorithms that bring market participants together. When platforms govern the exchange of news, content and speech, their rules raise profound issues of human rights and public welfare. Online platforms are not publishers, but neither are they neutral conduits; their role in governing online content markets has inevitable ethical connotations.
This paper argues that making intermediaries liable for content they host is not an appropriate solution to the harms arising from the free flow of information online. Policymakers must use new techniques to evaluate and engage with intermediaries’ rule-making activities. Since the nature and effects of intermediaries’ rules are often hard to assess, policymakers increasingly seek their ‘procedural accountability’.
Like all markets, online platforms need rules. Their rules are both explicit, in the form of community standards, moderator guidelines, terms of use, commercial contracts and policies, and implicit, in the code that shapes their interfaces and the algorithms that bring market participants together. When platforms govern the exchange of news, content and speech, their rules raise profound issues of human rights and public welfare. Online platforms are not publishers, but neither are they neutral conduits; their role in governing online content markets has inevitable ethical connotations.
This paper argues that making intermediaries liable for content they host is not an appropriate solution to the harms arising from the free flow of information online. Policymakers must use new techniques to evaluate and engage with intermediaries’ rule-making activities. Since the nature and effects of intermediaries’ rules are often hard to assess, policymakers increasingly seek their ‘procedural accountability’.