The ADD blog provides insight into the ADD project’s research across six university partners. Meet our researchers from Aalborg University, Aarhus University, Copenhagen Business School, Roskilde University, the University of Copenhagen, and the University of Southern Denmark. Read about their projects, activities, ideas, and thoughts—and gain a new perspective on the controversies and dilemmas we face in the digital age, along with ideas on how to strengthen digital democracy.
By Ulrikke Dybdal Sørensen, Public Industrial PhD Fellow, Center for Social media, Tech and Democracy, Ministry of Digital Affairs.
Data access is a prerequisite for gaining a better understanding of social media and thus for understanding the conditions of democracy in the digital age. Despite binding obligations, there are still several barriers to how researchers can examine the role and effects of social media. At the same time, there is no consistent application or clarification of what democratic discourse entails, implies or how it should be studied. I elaborate why in the following account from my research stay in Berlin.
Access Denied
In early September, the report Access Denied was published, describing how and why it can be difficult to grasp the impact of social media on people, society, and democracy. Although the report is based on experiences prior to the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) coming into force, the challenges have not diminished. On the contrary.
Data access in the DSA is defined in Article 40 of the legal text and is subject to increasing attention. It has the potential to enable data access to the very large online platforms and search engines and provide insight into how and to what extent the service providers live up to the accountability that comes with their central role in society. However, this potential has not been realized. Compliance reporting show that we are far from a point where data access can be considered a success. The latest findings from the European Commission shows that not only X but now also TikTok and Meta are failing to meet their data access obligations.
If you participated in the DSA 40 Collaboratory’s Data Access Days—two days dedicated to discussing how researchers can gain insights into the effects of platforms on European societies—it was clear that data access is increasingly a problem area rather than a field of research. I participated as Data Access Days marked the start of my research stay at the Weizenbaum Institute in Berlin.
Data access is a challenge for a majority of researchers investigating social media and online platforms. The barriers narrow the research possibilities, making it necessary to think creatively just to become a tiny bit wiser about what is going on in the digital information culture. To quote the Minister of Digital Affairs Caroline Stage, this is “really problematic.”
Questions on data access set the stage for my stay, leaving one thing clear. There is a need for coordinated efforts to emphasize what is being fought for and what the consequences will be if the platforms do not meet the requirements. Without coordination, it will be impossible to stand up to the platforms. At the same time, data access, as introduced in the DSA, is a completely new regulatory approach, and getting it right the first time is rarely the case. As such, its potential should not be dismissed too quickly, as it will require adaptation, negotiation, and alignment of expectations.
Tracking Data Access
Based on the lessons learned from Article 40 of the DSA, you need to look hard to find positive stories about sufficient and meaningful data access that allows for a proper analysis of the effects of social media. On Oct. 29, Article 40 came into full effect. What this will bring for data access remains to be seen. Expectations are mixed. On the one hand, the experiences so far provide no basis for believing that sufficient data access will be achieved. On the other hand, expectations are optimistic, as it holds potential for strengthening data access under the DSA.
A key challenge is that the data access framework and procedures are so complex that even figuring out how to apply it can be challenging. Encouraging researchers to engage with data access to the very large online platforms therefore requires efforts for advice and guidance. Part of the guidance work is already in place. At the Center for Social Media, Tech, and Democracy, we have developed and published a data access tracker: Are you applying for data access under Article 40 of the Digital Services Act?
The Data Acces Tracker is a self-reporting tool for sharing experiences with data access under the DSA, which will contribute to ensuring that data access to very large online platforms is realized in practice. The tracker will also be accompanied by guidance on the framework and possibilities for data access under the DSA.
The Democratic, Public, Shared Discourse and Debate – it goes by many names
While data access is about providing a basis for understanding the challenges that arise when large parts of the democratic infrastructure are facilitated by commercial, privately owned companies, another key challenge is the ambiguity surrounding how we refer to key concepts.
Despite widespread use in theory, practice, and discussion, there is no consensus on what we are referring to when we refer to democratic discourse (or one of its variations) online. As part of my PhD, I am mapping the concept across various sources and publication channels that describes or examines the concept of discourse(s) in an online context. The aim is to create an overview of what the “democratic discourse” entails and how it is applied, as differing interpretations and applications hinder common understanding and targeted efforts.
The mapping is based on the observation that “democratic discourse” is often defined and used in terms of what it is not, with a focus on issues such as strong language, verbal attacks, polarization, extreme views and self-censorship, which can undermine democratic discourse. Although this highlights the challenges facing a digitized democratic discourse, it is unclear what constitutes a functional democratic discourse online. This contributes to a reactive approach, which is needed to address the challenges of a digital culture. However, when the discourse is defined by the absence of elements that disrupt its democratic function, democratic principles are not clearly articulated, making it difficult to target efforts accordingly. Without a common language for what democratic discourse entails and implies, a proactive approach is difficult. The mapping will thus contribute to clarifying what constitutes what constitutes a functional democratic discourse in digital contexts.
“When the discourse is defined by the absence of elements that disrupt its democratic function, democratic principles are not clearly articulated, making it difficult to target efforts accordingly.”
Although the mapping is not done yet, preliminary results show that with 33 unique phrases for a public, democratic, shared debate and discourse, these rarely refer to or mean the same. An immediate “rule of thumb” is to refer to ‘debate’ for situations where discussion and debate of social issues take place and unfold, and to “’discourse” when dealing with the more functional and normative dimension of what participation, debating culture and environment should look like. This distinction separates the public discourse we want from the public discourse we have. However, this “rule” is challenged when both democratic and public discourse are being used within the same sentence in multiple instances.
The consequence is that it gets confusing to figure out when we are talking about the actual public discussion in the sense of the contemporary social debates, or whether it is the function or role that “democratic discourse” is expected to fulfill and the culture on which the discourse is expected to be based upon.
Regardless the word used, democratic expectations for public discourse can be interpreted in empirical studies in the context of what the results are compared to. Most often, this is based on the negative impact an empirical finding has when it is assessed as not belonging in a healthy (read: democratic) debating climate. While the word in all its variations does not necessarily refer to the same desirable facilitation, the underlying expectations of what constitutes a healthy, positive debate climate are relatively explicit. This allows for easier identification when something breaks the expectations. Therefore, by following the empirical phenomena being studied and what they are being held up against, a ‘wish list’ can be compiled of what democratic discourse should be and what it is not. This will contribute to the possibility of developing targeted efforts on how democratic discourse online can be reinforced.
Looking beyond the conceptual challenges, empirical studies also present various indicators of the state of digital democracy. Although the statistics point in different directions, a common consensus can be drawn regarding how social media challenges the democratic facilitation of public discourse—as the conditions provided by online platforms do not foster a culture of debate that aligns with the expectations of democratic discourse.
Informative value
According to the research group “Digital News Dynamics” at the Weizenbaum Institute in Berlin, the digital information environment is the focal point in understanding how digital platforms shape expectations and dynamics of public discourse. The group is part of the institute’s focus area on “Digital Markets and Public Spheres on Platforms.” They emphasize that although digital platforms have both expanded and accelerated access to information and communication, they also call into question established mechanisms that ensure the quality of information and debate.
The research group hosted my research stay, sharing the interest in understanding the role and effect of social media on the distribution and dissemination of information under the conditions of digital platforms. As a prerequisite for this, the group deals with data access and opportunities to get a solid foundation for conducting research. Without this, it’s not possible to do empirical investigations contributing to an understanding of digital communication dynamics.
The group works with concepts such as “intermediation” and “informativeness” as a conceptual lenses to capture the transformation of information and communication dynamics facilitated by social media, among other things. This involves questions about what constitutes communication and how information is facilitated. Particularly problematic were the reflections on “informative value” in digital information environments. When the boundaries of entertainment, facts, opinions, news, and falsehoods merge, and the practice of being informed increasingly resembles “brain rot” and “doomscrolling,” it may indicate that markers of informative value no longer apply.
The Wishlist for the Democratic Discourse Online
Data access, a common language, and informative value are all crucial for understanding social media’s influence on society. Yet this is difficult. With the mapping of how democratic discourse online is defined and applied, along with the empirical studies associated with it, it is increasingly clear how democratic expectations for public discourse are not realized. The digital transformation of how society, democracy, and people engage in societal matters brings fundamental changes at all levels, best illustrated through the digital information culture which challenges the value and quality of the information that constitutes the basis for public discourse.
Thus, in addition to devoting the autumn to data access and drafting guidance to assist researchers and analysts with the possibilities offered by the DSA for investigating the effects of social media on democracy, society, and people, the autumn will also be spent completing the conceptual mapping. Following the idea of a “wish list” for democratic online discourse, I aim to develop a model that provides a common language for key dimensions and elements of democratic discourse online. The objective is to inform the development of focused initiatives to enhance the conditions for realizing the democratic expectations of the debating culture and information environment.