IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/meanco/v9y2021i4p27-38.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Vulnerabilities of Trusted Notifier-Models in Russia: The Case of Netoscope

Author

Listed:
  • Liudmila Sivetc

    (Faculty of Law, University of Turku, Finland)

  • Mariëlle Wijermars

    (Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Maastricht University, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Current digital ecosystems are shaped by platformisation, algorithmic recommender systems, and news personalisation. These (algorithmic) infrastructures influence online news dissemination and therefore necessitate a reconceptualisation of how online media control is or may be exercised in states with restricted media freedom. Indeed, the degree of media plurality and journalistic independence becomes irrelevant when reporting is available but difficult to access; for example, if the websites of media outlets are not indexed or recommended by the search engines, news aggregators, or social media platforms that function as algorithmic gatekeepers. Research approaches to media control need to be broadened because authoritarian governments are increasingly adopting policies that govern the internet through its infrastructure; the power they leverage against private infrastructure owners yields more effective—and less easily perceptible—control over online content dissemination. Zooming in on the use of trusted notifier-models to counter online harms in Russia, we examine the Netoscope project (a database of Russian domain names suspected of malware, botnet, or phishing activities) in which federal censor Roskomnadzor cooperates with, e.g., Yandex (that downranks listed domains in search results), Kaspersky, and foreign partners. Based on publicly available reports, media coverage, and semi-structured interviews, the article analyses the degree of influence, control, and oversight of Netoscope’s participating partners over the database and its applications. We argue that, in the absence of effective legal safeguards and transparency requirements, the politicised nature of internet infrastructure makes the trusted notifier-model vulnerable to abuse in authoritarian states.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:9:y:2021:i:4:p:27-38
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/4237
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elena Sherstoboeva, 2020. "Regulation of Online Freedom of Expression in Russia in the Context of the Council of Europe Standards," Societies and Political Orders in Transition, in: Sergey Davydov (ed.), Internet in Russia, pages 83-100, Springer.
    2. Napoli, Philip M., 2015. "Social media and the public interest: Governance of news platforms in the realm of individual and algorithmic gatekeepers," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 751-760.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Urman, Aleksandra & Makhortykh, Mykola, 2023. "How transparent are transparency reports? Comparative analysis of transparency reporting across online platforms," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3).
    2. Olga Dovbysh & Esther Somfalvy, 2021. "Understanding Media Control in the Digital Age," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(4), pages 1-4.

    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. Rieder, Bernhard & Hofmann, Jeanette, 2020. "Towards platform observability," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 9(4), pages 1-28.
    2. Germano, Fabrizio & Sobbrio, Francesco, 2020. "Opinion dynamics via search engines (and other algorithmic gatekeepers)," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    3. Whittaker, Joe & Looney, Seán & Reed, Alastair & Votta, Fabio, 2021. "Recommender systems and the amplification of extremist content," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 10(2), pages 1-29.
    4. Lee, Changjun & Hwang, Junseok, 2018. "The influence of giant platform on content diversity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 157-165.
    5. Cheng, Kuo-Tai, 2016. "Test of the mediating effects of regulatory decision tools in the communications regulator," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 277-289.
    6. Matthew Tenney & Renee Sieber, 2016. "Data-Driven Participation: Algorithms, Cities, Citizens, and Corporate Control," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(2), pages 101-113.
    7. Rosa Vicari & Nadejda Komendatova, 2023. "Systematic meta-analysis of research on AI tools to deal with misinformation on social media during natural and anthropogenic hazards and disasters," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Cheng, John W. & Mitomo, Hitoshi & Otsuka, Tokio & Jeon, Stefan Y., 2015. "Media’s Effects on People’s Perceptions and Intentions in Post-Disaster Recovery – a Case Study of the Great East Japan Earthquake," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127133, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    9. She, Chaoyuan & Michelon, Giovanna, 2019. "Managing stakeholder perceptions: Organized hypocrisy in CSR disclosures on Facebook," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 54-76.
    10. Haenschen, Katherine & Wolf, Jordan, 2019. "Disclaiming responsibility: How platforms deadlocked the Federal Election Commission's efforts to regulate digital political advertising," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1-1.

    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:cog:meanco:v:9:y:2021:i:4:p:27-38. 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: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    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.