{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0140485312899106, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0038314176245210726, 'mean_word_length': 5.5020746887966805, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
To regulate or not to regulate: unravelling government institutional work towards AI regulation

Regulating how digital platforms use algorithms to determine and control content displayed to their users has become a controversial topic and an important societal challenge. Despite the acknowledgement of institutional tussles around regulation of algorithmic control, we lack research on how the development of regulation takes place. This research examines the process of institutional work by actors to develop regulation. We study two cases of algorithmic control regulation in Australia: one involving algorithmic control for content display, the other for moderation. We build on data from a longitudinal discourse analysis of 410 media articles and 447 policy and industry documents. We have found that the institutional work of regulators and digital platforms is critical to creating a new institutional arrangement, while third parties (media, academia, etc.) play a supporting or mediating role. We develop a process model of institutional work for regulation of algorithmic control. This model captures the institutional tussles between the main stakeholders as they express their perspective on legitimate forms of algorithmic control, and shape the process and outcome of regulation. Building on our model, we discuss the dynamics of regulation development in light of the constellations of actors and their power positions in the process. We further consider the outcome of regulation and highlight future research questions that build on our findings.