IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/telpol/v47y2023i1s0308596122001628.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

App store governance: Implications, limitations, and regulatory responses

Author

Listed:
  • Cowls, Josh
  • Morley, Jessica
  • Floridi, Luciano

Abstract

Events such as the riot at the United States Capitol and tightening constraints on the Russian public sphere have highlighted the socio-political significance of app store governance. This is dominated by Apple and Google as operators of the two largest smartphone platforms. In this article, we analyse two case studies: the removals from app stores in 2021 of the fringe American social media app Parler and of the Russian opposition app Smart Voting. On the basis of this analysis, we identify three critical limitations for app store governance at present: Apple's and Google's dominance, the substantive opacity of their respective app store guidelines, and the arbitrariness with which these guidelines are applied to specific cases. We then assess the potential efficacy of legislative proposals in the EU and US to intervene in this domain and conclude by offering some recommendations supporting more efficacious and socially responsible app store governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Cowls, Josh & Morley, Jessica & Floridi, Luciano, 2023. "App store governance: Implications, limitations, and regulatory responses," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:47:y:2023:i:1:s0308596122001628
    DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596122001628
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102460?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. Gorwa, Robert, 2019. "What is Platform Governance?," SocArXiv fbu27, Center for Open Science.
    2. Katzenbach, Christian & Ulbricht, Lena, 2019. "Algorithmic governance," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 8(4), pages 1-18.
    3. Katzenbach, Christian & Ulbricht, Lena, 2019. "Algorithmic governance," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 8(4), pages 1-18.
    4. Itf, 2019. "Governing Transport in the Algorithmic Age," International Transport Forum Policy Papers 82, OECD Publishing.
    5. Cath, Corinne, 2021. "The technology we choose to create: Human rights advocacy in the Internet Engineering Task Force," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6).
    6. Geoffrey Parker & Georgios Petropoulos & Marshall Van Alstyne, 2020. "Digital platforms and antitrust," Working Papers 39891, Bruegel.
    7. Windrum, Paul, 2004. "Leveraging technological externalities in complex technologies: Microsoft's exploitation of standards in the browser wars," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 385-394, April.
    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. Tironi, Martín & Rivera Lisboa, Diego Ignacio, 2023. "Artificial intelligence in the new forms of environmental governance in the Chilean State: Towards an eco-algorithmic governance," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    2. Dolata, Ulrich, 2020. "Internet – Plattformen – Regulierung: Koordination von Märkten und Kuratierung von Sozialität," Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, SOI Discussion Papers 2020-01, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies.
    3. Ulbricht, Lena, 2020. "Algorithmen und Politisierung [Algorithms and politicization]," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 0, pages 255-278.
    4. Kniep, Ronja, 2022. ""Herren der Information" - Die transnationale Autonomie digitaler Überwachung ["Masters of information" - The transnational autonomy of digital surveillance]," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 32(2), pages 457-480.
    5. Milosavljević, Miloš & Radovanović, Sandro & Delibašić, Boris, 2023. "What drives the performance of tax administrations? Evidence from selected european countries," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    6. Dolata, Ulrich, 2020. "Internet – Platforms – Regulation: Coordination of Markets and Curation of Sociality," Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, SOI Discussion Papers 2020-02, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies.
    7. Eduard Hartwich & Alexander Rieger & Johannes Sedlmeir & Dominik Jurek & Gilbert Fridgen, 2023. "Machine economies," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-13, December.
    8. Lena Ulbricht & Karen Yeung, 2022. "Algorithmic regulation: A maturing concept for investigating regulation of and through algorithms," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 3-22, January.
    9. Sætra, Henrik Skaug, 2020. "A shallow defence of a technocracy of artificial intelligence: Examining the political harms of algorithmic governance in the domain of government," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    10. de Vries, Erik J., 2006. "Innovation in services in networks of organizations and in the distribution of services," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1037-1051, September.
    11. Blind, Knut & Thumm, Nikolaus, 2004. "Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies: empirical evidence and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1583-1598, December.
    12. Yiquan Gu & Leonardo Madio & Carlo Reggiani, 2019. "Exclusive Data, Price Manipulation and Market Leadership," CESifo Working Paper Series 7853, CESifo.
    13. Palladino, Nicola, 2023. "A ‘biased’ emerging governance regime for artificial intelligence? How AI ethics get skewed moving from principles to practices," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5).
    14. Radu, Roxana & Kettemann, Matthias C. & Meyer, Trisha & Shahin, Jamal, 2021. "Normfare: Norm entrepreneurship in internet governance," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6).
    15. Gorwa, Robert, 2019. "The platform governance triangle: conceptualising the informal regulation of online content," SocArXiv tgnrj, Center for Open Science.
    16. Katarzyna Gruszka & Manuel Scholz-Wäckerle & Ernest Aigner, 2020. "Planetary carambolage: The evolutionary political economy of technology, nature and work," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 273-293, November.
    17. Wu, Mian & Liu, Yulong & Chung, Henry F.L. & Guo, Shoujia, 2022. "When and how mobile payment platform complementors matter in cross-border B2B e-commerce ecosystems? An integration of process and modularization analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 843-854.
    18. Gorwa, Robert, 2019. "The platform governance triangle: conceptualising the informal regulation of online content," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 8(2), pages 1-22.
    19. van de Kaa, Geerten & Papachristos, George & de Bruijn, Hans, 2019. "The governance of platform development processes: A metaphor and a simulation model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 190-203.
    20. Hyungjun Seo & Seunghwan Myeong, 2021. "Determinant Factors for Adoption of Government as a Platform in South Korea: Mediating Effects on the Perception of Intelligent Information Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-20, September.

    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:1:s0308596122001628. 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.