The Future of Platform Power: Quarantining Misinformation
Abstract
Amid the roiling debate over the impact of the internet on democracy, we reflect on a recent contribution to this topic in these pages by Francis Fukuyama, who proposes that internet companies open their platforms to outside content-moderation services. We support exploring new approaches that promote greater user control and autonomy on social media platforms but take issue with his narrow definition of the problem. While the core issues of agency and power in democratic systems will not be resolved by better technology, improving design can make a positive impact. Whole-of-society problems will ultimately require whole-of-society thinking and action.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Encouraging customized social media experiences is unlikely to address social fragmentation and ideological polarization, given that it does not change the underlying ad-driven business model.
“Furthermore, encouraging customized social media experiences is unlikely to address social fragmentation and ideological polarization (Faris & Donovan, 2021), given that it does not change the underlying ad-driven business model (Maréchal, 2021).”
From Stuck in the middleware with you: the challenges of capitalizing a market-oriented approach to platform governance (2025) · cites this paper as Faris & Donovan, 2021
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hallinan, B., Rothenstein, O., & John, N. A. (2025) · Communication and Change · doi:10.1007/s44382-025-00018-9
“Furthermore, encouraging customized social media experiences is unlikely to address social fragmentation and ideological polarization (Faris & Donovan, 2021), given that it does not change the underlying ad-driven business model (Maréchal, 2021).”
- Authors
- Faris, R., & Donovan, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Democracy
- Publisher
- Project MUSE
- Published
- 2021
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 152-156
- ISSN
- 1045-5736 (ISSN-L)
- 1086-3214
- OpenAlex
- W3193014798
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 1.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of democracy (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Law › Freedom of Expression and Defamation
- Keywords
- platform power, misinformation, content moderation, social media, user autonomy, internet companies, democracy, user control, platform design, whole-of-society approach, Francis Fukuyama
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
