Interoperability is one of the best tools policymakers have to increase competition in the tech sector. I’ve written about about barriers to competition elsewhere, but network effects are one of the most significant.
Definitionally, network effects occur when the quality of a digital service is proportionate to its number of customers. Often dominant platforms exploit these this phenomenon by closing the network off from others, preventing users from exchanging messages and sending content with other services.
In essence, they reduce interoperability, which is the ability of digital system to exchange and render data and other useful information with other systems. Requiring digital systems to interoperate has strong potential to eliminate the anti-competitive barrier of network effects.
This policy has that effect because it would allow innovative companies starting out with a smaller number of customers to make use of highly valuable information generated in competing networks, and it would empower users with greater choice and agency to tailor digital services to their needs.
This topic is the subject of my research project. For the reasons outlined above, there is broad consensus that greater interoperability is desirable, but as with many policy questions, the devil is in the details.
I wrote a research paper on the topic this fall, and I understand the literature to be highly theoretical and scattershot in focus (i.e., many definitions of interoperability). Therefore, my goal will be to take a very narrow view on social media platforms and seek to evaluate the concrete interoperability mandates policymakers can consider.
A constant theme of the literature is that analysts must pay close attention to the particular markets under consideration. I agree with this injunction. The technology and information involved with e-commerce, for instance, is very different from that of social media. Though their competitive rationales may be similar, standards set by regulators would necessarily differ for the two markets. This reasoning is why my project will focus particularly on evaluating technology standards for social media.
According to Becky Chao and Ross Schulman of the Open Technology Institute, interoperability standards come in two forms: a uniform standard for the protocols used by platforms to govern the exchange of information (full standardization) or maintenance of an open Application Programming Interface.
Other alternatives likely exist, and unearthing them is one of the goals of my project. I view standards as existing on a spectrum: stronger mandates leave little autonomy for platforms while weaker ones leave some latitude.
While the common thrust of these standards is to enhance interoperability, weaker interventions may create fewer risks to user privacy and lock-in of antiquated technology. Because interoperability increases the flow of information between services, users may find it more difficult to control where their information goes, which has negative consequences for their privacy.
In addition, a more uniform standard risks reducing useful differentiation between services and enshrining a current technology that may hold back future innovation. Weaker interventions would still greatly expand competition, and they might also entail smaller downsides. Thinking more concretely about these trade offs would be one of the primary aims of my research.
By its very nature, regulation of technology is highly technical and interdisciplinary, so a variety of perspectives would be needed for the project. My method will be to interview a couple dozen experts with relevant knowledge or experience on this issue to shed insight into the following research question: What policy considerations should influence the regulation of interoperability between social media platforms?
In using this methodology, I emulate a few other scholars I’ve read. First is Kate Klonick and her highly-cited paper about content moderation. From what I remember, she interviewed a large group of people working in content moderation to illustrate how content moderation works in practice and its implications for American jurisprudence.
Similarly, in their wonderful book Interop, Urs Gasser and John Palfrey wrote several case studies on policy areas where greater interoperability would be useful (e.g. electronic medical records). For their research, they interviewed a number of policy experts.
I will follow this path and plan to interview a number of groups: government agencies, advocacy organizations, industry, systems engineers, computer scientists, and academics. I will synthesize their ideas about the technology itself, regulatory process, and legal/economic landscape into a number of useful, concrete policy recommendations. My hope is that these proposals will inform future scholarship and policy-making in this area.
“Week 1” entitles this post because I will be posting an update on this project once per week until mid-March. I am currently enrolled in an independent research course with Public Policy Professor Jim Leitzel at the University of Chicago. With this structure, I have the support and mentorship in place for a robust research project.
This week I will begin my review of the literature on several topics: standards and standard-setting, Application Programming Interfaces, information protocols, digital privacy, the economics of social media, and interoperability itself. I will also be researching designs for my interview methodology. Expect a follow-up post later this week. Onward!