This is part of a much larger debate on private versus public (publicness theorists in the public administration literature rejoice!) - a private company offers what has been widely adopted as public infrastructure. HOWEVER it is not a public entity, so can't be governed as such
https://twitter.com/Vinncent/status/1445146408177315845
The first scholar I read on why Facebook should be considered public infrastructure was @zephoria and I don't know if she has advanced this argument any further (I read her circa 2009, I think?) - but the reality is that global adoption of FB and WA doesn't mean that there is...
... any entity that can govern it in a way that continues to provide a public service to citizens. This is a huge problem in the global environmental governance literature too. UNEP is widely thought of as THE agency to govern the global climate. But @mivanova proves it's not.
Public service delivery is such an important (and I believe under-researched) area of study, particularly when the service is global. Public administration scholars should pay attention to this research question. How can we provide global communication infrastructure reliably?
(surely someone has been thinking about this, but in the public policy and public administration literatures, which are the ones I am most familiar with, I'm not certain about who is thinking about it).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
