Question One:

On the balance of evidence and different stakeholder groups, what is the best way for platform to be regulated, balancing the public interest and market?

The business operations and activities of all companies and organizations should comply with business ethics and principles. Business ethics can be understood as written or unwritten codes of principles and values that determine the decision-making of companies (Clegg, Kornberger, and Rhodes, 2007, p102). According to the Stakeholder Theory, companies should consider the interests of all stakeholder groups instead of just internal stakeholders such as shareholders, managers, and employees (Freeman, 2001, p38). Many companies consider only economic benefits and profits in business operations. As a result, the interests and welfare of external stakeholders such as the general public are neglected. In this new era of digital 2.0, the emergence of artificial intelligence, cloud-computing, deep-learning, big data analytics, the Internet of Things (IoT), etc, facilitates technological development and revolution in many industries. Many internet platforms can effectively gather users’ private information by analyzing the so-called user-generated contents (UGCs). Photos, posts, comments, videos, and blog articles uploaded via user accounts are examples of UGCs (Daugherty, Eastin and Bright, 2008, p16). Through applying Big Data analytics, for instance, marketers can easily understand customers’ buying preferences and behaviors so as to promote goods and services to potential or targeted customers. Meanwhile, it should be noticed that the confidential data may be illegally traded or leaked to unauthorized personnel or a third party without the user consents. Hence, to a very large extent, on the balance of evidence and stakeholder interests, the best way to regulate platforms’ behaviors is through legal enforcement.

Firstly, China needs enact or update new legal regulations to protect platform users’ privacy rights with respect to user-generated content. In fact, all companies especially internet service platform providers in EU are strictly regulated under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Goddard, 2007, p703). Platform service providers or operators need to inform the legal committee about what personal data are collected and how they are planning to do with the data. However, currently in China, the rules and regulations about protecting user-generated content are still unaccomplished. Privacy rights have been available to Chinese citizens under the Constitution and other legal regulations since the 1980s but the specific laws governing online privacy rights are still lacking. As such, China’s legal institutions need to draw insights from GDPR to regulate the behaviors of platform operators so that the interests of all stakeholders can be well protected. For instance, platform service providers should report relevant information about how they manage to protect user-generated contents and data as follows,

Ø What personal data the platform can collect or is collecting,

Ø How the internet platform uses cookies

Ø Why the platform need the user data or information

Ø What the platform plans to do with the data

Ø How the platform store user data and how long the data will be stored for

Ø Who the data might be shared with

Ø How users can require their data to be altered or deleted

Ø What practices, procedures, or policies the platform is undertaking to protect users’ data

Ø How privacy policies of the platform are altered and communicated to users

In conclusion, through legal enforcement, both public interests and respective markets can be protected. The decision-making and behaviors of internet platforms can also be effectively regulated within the legal framework. Sometimes platform service providers like Sina are not sufficiently aware that the user data can be an extremely valuable resource. They may trade user data with external marketers for the purpose of making enormous profits. However, such behavior poses a great threat to the privacy right of users. But it is indisputable that the rapid development of information and communication technology does make people’s life much more convenient than before. Therefore, it is important to be cautious about making any amendments in legal regulations. Both public interests and market should be taken into consideration.

Question two:

What are the compromises (market/public)?

Even though it is important to protect all stakeholders, sometimes it is rather difficult to do so when there is a conflict of interests. For instance, during the current outbreak of the global pandemic, Covid-19, the public health system of China has to collect private data of Chinese citizens so that the infection cases can be effectively identified and reported (Peng, Yang and Stebbing, 2020, p1). In this sense, the privacy rights of individuals might be conditionally violated. On the other hand, when China’s governments and legal institutions impose strict regulations or measures to regulate the behaviors of internet platforms, Chinese citizens may fear that their expressions and speeches are under state surveillance. Therefore, it can be noticed that both market and the general public may need to make compromises after implementing legal enforcement.

Firstly, Chinese citizens may be suffering from the “chilling effect”. The implementation of strict legal regulations can effectively make sure that platform service providers to protect user-generated content. But it should be noticed that China’s government itself has long been criticized for violating the privacy right of its own citizens (Zeng, Chan and Fu, 2017, p297). China’s legal institutions are not separated from its political system. The legal intervention on the internet or social media platforms may provide a wrong signal to Chinese online users. They may fear that their expressions, perceptions, speeches, and other user-generated content are under state surveillance. As such, they may be reluctant to show their expressions freely on internet platforms any longer.

Besides, internet platforms and related businesses such as e-Commerce and social media channels may be also adversely affected. The proposed legal enforcement requires all platforms to submit reports of user-generated data for further assessment. However, like the aforementioned, China’s legal institutions are under the control of China’s central government and political system. In other words, the submitted user-generated data and other digital information may be in the hands of China’s government (Wang and Hong, 2010, p67). It is unethical for platforms to trade or transmit user data to a third party. Government bodies should also be on the list of the so-called third parties.

In conclusion, after implementing strict legal regulations on platform services, both the public and the market may be subject to comprises such as the “chilling effect” and state surveillance. But to a very large extent, legal enforcement is still the most effective option, and arguably the lesser evil, in protecting user data because It is difficult to educate platform operators or service providers to strictly follow business ethical principles without legal regulations.

Reference

Clegg, S., Kornberger, M., & Rhodes, C. 2007. Business ethics as practice. British Journal of Management, 18(2), pp.107-122.

Daugherty, T., Eastin, M. S., & Bright, L. 2008. Exploring consumer motivations for creating user-generated content. Journal of interactive advertising, 8(2), pp.16-25.

Freeman, R. E. 2001. A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation. Perspectives in Business Ethics Sie, 3(144), pp.38-48.

Goddard, M. 2017. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): European regulation that has a global impact. International Journal of Market Research, 59(6), pp.703-705.

Peng, L., Yang, J. S., & Stebbing, J. 2020. Lessons to Europe from China for cancer treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. British journal of cancer, pp.1-2.

Wang, S. S., & Hong, J. 2010. Discourse behind the forbidden realm: Internet surveillance and its implications on China’s blogosphere. Telematics and Informatics, 27(1), pp.67-78.

Zeng, J., Chan, C. H., & Fu, K. W. 2017. How Social Media Construct “Truth” Around Crisis Events: Weibo's Rumor Management Strategies After the 2015 Tianjin Blasts. Policy & Internet, 9(3), pp.297-320.