Around the world, there is growing concern about platform regulation. In Brazil, the debate over whether and how platforms should be regulated often intensifies during critical moments, such as elections, mobilizations, and health crises. Gorwa (2024) argues that when a government possesses sufficient power to intervene in platform governance, it can drive significant policy changes. However, when government power is constrained, its ability to implement impactful policies and secure platform cooperation may be less effective. In this context, we ask: What are the key areas of contention in platform regulation?

By examining two major regulatory proposals in Brazil—the Internet Freedom, Responsibility, and Transparency Act (Fake News Bill 2630/2020) and the platform work regulation (PLP 12/2024)—we aim to shed light on the challenges and potential pathways for more effective platform governance. Specifically, we focus on two crucial moments: (i) the transition from self-regulatory measures to platform governance models and/or co-regulation; and (ii) the moments when regulations stall and cooperation between public and private actors is at risk.

Questions regarding quality digital platform data have gained significant attention and research focus in recent years as new error frameworks and data quality dimensions have been developed. With this contribution we link recent work from the area of data quality research with critical reflections on platformization and argue that the quality of online platform data cannot solely be understood as a methodological, internal research construct, but also as a contested concept in which various actors from politics, the tech industry and academia negotiate and represent specific interests. On the one hand, digital platforms increased the commoditization of data quality, e.g. though monetized APIs. On the other hand, this strategy of digital platforms has now increasingly become the subject of political efforts of regulation, especially in the European Union (EU). The Digital Services Act (DSA) includes provisions for access to platform data by researchers. We problematize that the current debate and the DSA are particularly about data access from platforms, but not data quality in general. The consequence of this is that even if platforms grant access to data, the actual purpose of conducting reliable and socially relevant research is undermined by a lack of data quality. As a potential solution, we identify the need for new actors to assess the quality of platform data and provide long term accountability and supportive infrastructure for quality assessments.

While studies of eRulemaking have contributed greatly to questions concerning machine-assisted analysis, efficacy, and scale, the role and representation of Indigenous voices is notably absent. This particular political tension between settler government and Indigenous peoples’ is hyper-visible in cases where Indigenous peoples’ do not have Federal recognition. This typically means the choice to participate or refuse the process is even higher stakes. An exemplar of this tension are the Islands of Hawai‘i. Currently, in Hawai‘i, multiple, overlapping social movements and environmental crises are occurring. In nearly all of these cases, the state government is required, or opts-in, to call for public opinion in order to inform rule-making. In this study, I analyze public comments from Regulations.gov, a Federal archive and submission platform for public comments, concerning the intersection of environmentalism and Hawai‘i. To accomplish this, I implement a computational grounded theory approach that involves three steps: computational data exploration/pattern detection, qualitative deep reading, and pattern confirmation. From this method, I derive both common linguistic trends and common themes within and across the comment discourses. The second part of this study is applying the derived themes to a set of “Final Rules” from the finalized rule/regulation. The goal is to assess which types of advocacy are most successful in being included in Final Rules.

This paper examines the STF’s pending ruling on the constitutionality of Article 19 of the MCI—the cornerstone provision establishing the intermediary liability regime in Brazil—against the wider legal and policy context. Through analysis of the legal framework against which the STF will make a decision—including examining the opinions that three out of eleven Justices have already handed down—and broader political economy considerations, we address the following research question: what impact will the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision have on the future of platform regulation in Brazil? Overall, we will argue that while the STF’s ruling on the constitutionality of the MCI’s intermediary liability regime will significantly impact the future of platform regulation in Brazil, it represents just one component of a necessary broader (and urgent) reform agenda. Overarching platform governance in Brazil has historically been shaped by Congress with lower courts constantly weighing in on the legality of different types of content. The ruling will mark the first time the STF decides on a key platform regulation disposition with systemic impact. Our conclusions hold important implications for both scholarly understanding of platform governance and practical approaches to regulatory reform, particularly in the Global South. The Brazilian case offers valuable insights for other jurisdictions grappling with similar challenges, especially in contexts of political polarisation and limited regulatory capacity.