SOCIAL MEDIA GOVERNANCE VIA AN “ANEMIC” POLICY REGIME? HOW BOUNDARY SPANNING, COMPETING ISSUE DEFINITIONS, LACK OF COHESION, AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAGMENTATION IMPEDE REGULATORY REFORM

Abstract

Across the globe, lawmakers have enacted a range of reforms targeting the operation of large digital platforms. Within the United States, however, the push to regulate platform companies—specifically, social media—has faltered. Neither standard interest group politics, nor partisan deadlock, nor the clash of liberal versus conservative ideologies adequately account for this situation. Drawing upon historical sources, an examination of political-ideational foundations, and an empirical analysis of recent Congressional hearings, this paper argues that an “anemic” policy regime has emerged for governance of the social media sector in the United States over the past two decades. Key attributes of this regime—its boundary-spanning nature, competing issue definitions, lack of policy cohesion, and administrative fragmentation—combine to impede the capability for problem-solving on the topic of regulatory reform.