The primary progressive model for curing the perceived ills of social media – the failure to block harmful content – is to encourage or require social media platforms to act as gatekeepers. On this view, the institutional media, such as newspapers, radio, and television, historically ensured that the flow of information to citizens and consumers was "clean," meaning cleansed of falsehoods and malicious content. This in turn permitted a basic consensus to exist on facts and basic values, something essential for functional democracies. The rise of social media, however, destroyed the ability of institutional media to act as gatekeepers, and so, it is argued, it is incumbent on platforms to step into that role. This chapter argues that this is misguided. Traditional gatekeepers shared two key characteristics: scarcity and objectivity. Neither, however, characterizes the online world. And in any event, social media lack either the economic incentives or the expertise to be effective gatekeepers of information. Finally, and most fundamentally, the entire model of elite gatekeepers of knowledge is inconsistent with basic First Amendment principles and should be abandoned.

Chapter 9 explores regulatory compliance, enforcement and certification. It analyses the vital role of enforcement action and how rules aimed at influencing human and institutional behaviour are translated into social reality. It draws attention to the human interaction that takes place during encounters with regulatory enforcement officials and regulators. We discuss how ‘risk-based’ approaches to regulation can be understood and operationalised. It then touches upon the investigatory powers of public regulators, and the nature, purpose and variety of regulatory sanctions. Finally, it examines the role of ‘private’ bodies and other ‘regulatory intermediaries’ in certifying that a regulatee’s activities complies regulatory standards which purport to offer consumers, as primary beneficiaries, ‘assurance’ of the quality of the resulting outputs.

Transnational policy networks (TPNs) participate in global governance by formulating ideas and policy options around and through formal and informal intergovernmental organizations. They illustrate the third type of informal governance introduced in Chapter 1, informal governance that exists in the spaces around these institutions. TPNs are constituted by individuals who share a common expertise, a common technical language, and broadly shared normative concerns, but not a common institutional setting nor agreement on specific policy goals. This chapter contrasts TPNs with other institutional forms in the literature – advocacy networks, epistemic communities, transgovernmental networks, public–private partnerships, multistakeholder initiatives, and transgovernmental initiatives – and argues for their integrative advantages and ability to address individual agency and power. A heuristic case illustrates how a TPN functioned to create the Office of the Ombudsperson at the UN – securing rights protection for individuals targeted for UN sanctions – despite the initial opposition of all five Permanent Members of the Security Council. The chapter concludes with reflections on the potential benefits of applying the concept to other emergent policy domains.

The digital economy raises important concerns relating to the concentration of economic-political power and, consequently, to the separation of powers in a broad sense, or more narrowly to checks and balances. Several recent or proposed pieces of legislation, especially in Australia, the European Union, Germany, India, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States aim at tackling some issues posed by large digital platforms. These recent or proposed pieces of legislation all address important issues in the digital economy, and some of them could contribute to reduce entrenched market concentration, however, to a degree that remains to be defined. The most comprehensive set of bills from this perspective was introduced in the U.S. Congress during the last two years. However, even in this country, the concentration of politico-economic power in a few firms and the control of the digital infrastructure of democracy by them would remain widely unregulated, as in other countries, should Congress pass the proposed bills.

Many jurisdictions require lawyers to advise clients about mediation. As gatekeepers of the process, lawyers have duties to fulfil before the mediation starts, during the process and when it ends. There are ethical considerations that mediators must consider and potential legal liability to bear in mind. While it is important to distinguish between acting as a lawyer and as a mediator to ensure there is no conflict of roles, the two roles can also have a symbiotic relationship. Observing the work of lawyers in mediation from a detached perspective is beneficial, as opportunities arise to see behaviours that are counter-productive and behaviours that are constructive. This acquaints a lawyer with a variety of ways to respond to difficult behaviours by clients or opposing counsel that can help in meeting the parties’ substantive needs. Mediation has been instrumental in the emergence of the ‘new lawyer’ – a professional who has a greater focus on the potential for interest-based bargaining and problem solving, and accepts the value of non-legal solutions to legal problems. The flexibility of the mediation process can also facilitate expert involvement in a non-adversarial way.

This chapter discusses a set of complexity drivers and the facilitators and cognitive constraints confronted with when facing a complex subject such as multinational corporate groups. I argue that part of the challenge of determining the nature of a corporate group is the tension between formal and informal perceptions of corporate control, in the game played by corporations and intermediaries and by national legislators amending legal concepts based on depictions that do not necessarily reflect today’s business realities.

This chapter critically evaluates the system-wide practice of the peer review process, particularly the system for scholarly journal publications, and the implications of this practice for knowledge production. Production of knowledge in the social sciences is about the creation of social knowledge. The peer review process provides the ex ante assessment of journal publications by relying on the expertise of peer reviewers who take on the responsibility for assuring high quality standards. This system is not without its critics, however. This chapter entertains several proposals that may serve as alternatives, ranging from minor modifications to complete abolition of the system. Potential advantages and disadvantages of each alternative are explored.