| Abstract [eng] |
While the role of the state in regulating the internet has been debated since its inception, there is increasing talk of a "return" of the state to internet governance, one of the aims of which is to reclaim the right to regulate the flow of information and to curb the increased influence of the big technology companies. The master thesis examines the regulatory policies on social networking content of three 'power centres' - the US, the EU and China - which occupy different positions in the online space and value social networking companies differently. Drawing on the framework of interdependence theory as articulated by Henry Farrell and Abraham L. Newman, a qualitative case study is carried out by discussing three different regimes of involvement of states and international institutions in the regulation of online content. The study draws a number of conclusions. The US remains the historical leading promoter and disseminator of the values of an open and free internet. As the largest, most globally established companies in the social networking market, US-based online platforms remain dominant in the global e-commerce network, but should do more to maintain this leadership. While the EU has limited ability to compete with the US and China in the online platform market, it is working hard to secure its digital sovereignty, and is seeking to consolidate its dominance in the digital economy through digital regulatory leadership and the democratic, people-centred model of regulation of online platforms currently being proposed on the first scale in the world and which is to be enshrined in the Digital Services Act. China's authoritarian model for regulating social networking content differs sharply from both the self-regulatory approach of the US and the EU's future regime, which focuses on systemic risks. China's approach is characterised by a very high degree of state involvement in the regulation of social networking content and strict regulation of the liability of online platforms, which is becoming another tool of authoritarian power to restrict freedom of expression. |
