Spectrum policy debates are generally divided between advocates for more robust property rights that would allow Coasian bargaining and advocates for spectrum commons that would permit more unlicensed applications. As recent debates about the upcoming broadcast spectrum incentive auctions indicate, there is also basic disagreement about what the Federal Communications Commission's role should be in managing spectrum for mobile wireless devices. Some advocates seek enhanced regulation that would implement bright-line limits of spectrum holdings and/or differentiate between spectrum bands in evaluations of spectrum aggregation, e.g., a separate limit for sub-1 GHz holdings, while others argue that the FCC should largely refrain from limiting spectrum aggregation across spectrum bands by wireless carriers. These debates are often seen as contests between the regulated and the regulator, i.e., wireless carriers and their organizations against the FCC, with a repetitive dynamic: the regulator seeks to implement its statutory mission by means of further regulation while the players in the industry resist constraints on their ability to act, or alternatively, seek regulation that furthers particular interests, e.g., regulation that benefits the dominant players, while disfavoring smaller competitors and new entrants. Interestingly, contemporary spectrum policy debates involve a broader set of actors than the regulators and the regulated. Today, spectrum policy advocates include numerous organizations and individuals that are not directly regulated, but believe they have a stake in spectrum policy. These advocates are distinct in their increased use and engagement with social media and new forms of Internet based advocacy instead of traditional processes, e.g., filing comments with the FCC at appropriate times in response to proposed rule makings. New forms of advocacy could allow for highly technical spectrum policy debates to engage large audiences, which encourages further participation by non-traditional actors. Despite its seemingly abstract and technical nature, spectrum policy is being debated in real time on Twitter on Facebook around the world and occupying the same space as commentary about Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga. This paper utilizes new tools for analyzing social media postings to understand the scope and contours of spectrum policy debates happening on social media. Raw Twitter and Facebook feed data is collected and analyzed using a variety of computational methods, including event detection, sentiment analysis, informational analysis and trending topic analysis. Visualization tools are also used to provide insight into the underlying data. These insights and analysis are then used to chart key events that lead to bursts of online activity; to map the geographic distribution of contributions, including international debates; and to synthesize recurring themes and memes. Based upon these empirical results, this paper seeks to engage academic debates regarding the contemporary politics of spectrum policy; the effect of online social media on policy debates, particularly regarding highly technical issues and resource allocation; and the efficacy of certain types of Internet engagement, including the social media efforts of the FCC and other established actors in this sphere.

This volume sets out to analyse the relation between social media and politics by investigating the power of the internet and more specifically social media, in the political and social discourse. The volume collects original research on the use of social media in political campaigns, electoral marketing, riots and social revolutions, presenting a range of case studies from across the world as well as theoretical and methodological contributions. Examples that explore the use of social media in electoral campaigns include, for instance, studies on the use of Face book in the 2012 US presidential campaign and in the 2011 Turkish general elections. The final section of the book debates the usage of Twitter and other Web 2.0 tools in mobilizing people for riots and revolutions, presenting and analysing recent events in Istanbul and Egypt, among others.

One important aim of social science research is to provide unbiased information that can help guide public policies. However, social science is often construed as politics by other means. Nowhere is the polarized nature of social science research more visible than in the heated debate over charter schools. In Spin Cycle, noted political scientist and education expert Jeffrey Henig explores how controversies over the charter school movement illustrate the use and misuse of research in policy debates. Henig's compelling narrative reveals that, despite all of the political maneuvering on the public stage, research on school choice has gradually converged on a number of widely accepted findings. This quiet consensus shows how solid research can supersede partisan cleavages and sensationalized media headlines. In Spin Cycle, Henig draws on extensive interviews with researchers, journalists, and funding agencies on both sides of the debate, as well as data on federal and foundation grants and a close analysis of media coverage, to explore how social science research is "spun" in the public sphere. Henig looks at the consequences of a highly controversial New York Times article that cited evidence of poor test performance among charter school students. The front-page story, based on research findings released by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), sparked an explosive debate over the effectiveness of charter schools. In the ensuing drama, reputable scholars from both ends of the political spectrum launched charges and counter-charges over the research methodology and the implications of the data. Henig uses this political tug-of-war to illustrate broader problems relating to social science: of what relevance is supposedly non-partisan research when findings are wielded as political weapons on both sides of the debate? In the case of charter schools, Henig shows that despite the political posturing in public forums, many researchers have since revised their stances according to accumulating new evidence and have begun to find common ground. Over time, those who favored charter schools were willing to admit that in many instances charter schools are no better than traditional schools. And many who were initially alarmed by the potentially destructive consequences of school choice admitted that their fears were overblown. The core problem, Henig concludes, has less to do with research itself than with the way it is often sensationalized or misrepresented in public discourse. Despite considerable frustration over the politicization of research, until now there has been no systematic analysis of the problem. Spin Cycle provides an engaging narrative and instructive guide with far-reaching implications for the way research is presented to the public. Ultimately, Henig argues, we can do a better job of bringing research to bear on the task of social betterment.

A state-of-the-art account of what we know and do not know about the effects of digital technology on democracy.

As the Supreme Court has recognized, social media sites like Facebook and Twitter have become important venues for users to exercise free speech rights protected under the First Amendment. Commentators and legislators, however, have questioned whether these social media platforms are living up to their reputation as digital public forums. Some have expressed concern that these sites are not doing enough to counter violent or false speech. At the same time, many argue that the platforms are unfairly banning and restricting access to potentially valuable speech. Currently, federal law does not offer much recourse for social media users who seek to challenge a social media provider's decision about whether and how to present a user's content. Lawsuits predicated on these sites' decisions to host or remove content have been largely unsuccessful, facing at least two significant barriers under existing federal law. First, while individuals have sometimes alleged that these companies violated their free speech rights by discriminating against users' content, courts have held that the First Amendment, which provides protection against state action, is not implicated by the actions of these private companies. Second, courts have concluded that many non-constitutional claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, which provides immunity to providers of interactive computer services, including social media providers, both for certain decisions to host content created by others and for actions taken "voluntarily" and "in good faith" to restrict access to "objectionable" material. Some have argued that Congress should step in to regulate social media sites. Government action regulating internet content would constitute state action that may implicate the First Amendment. In particular, social media providers may argue that government regulations impermissibly infringe on the providers' own constitutional free speech rights. Legal commentators have argued that when social media platforms decide whether and how to post users' content, these publication decisions are themselves protected under the First Amendment. There are few court decisions evaluating whether a social media site, by virtue of publishing, organizing, or even editing protected speech, is itself exercising free speech rights. Consequently, commentators have largely analyzed the question of whether the First Amendment protects a social media site's publication decisions by analogy to other types of First Amendment cases. There are at least three possible frameworks for analyzing governmental restrictions on social media sites' ability to moderate user content. Which of these three frameworks applies will depend largely on the particular action being regulated. Under existing law, social media platforms may be more likely to receive First Amendment protection when they exercise more editorial discretion in presenting user-generated content, rather than if they neutrally transmit all such content. In addition, certain types of speech receive less protection under the First Amendment. Courts may be more likely to uphold regulations targeting certain disfavored categories of speech such as obscenity or speech inciting violence. Finally, if a law targets a social media site's conduct rather than speech, it may not trigger the protections of the First Amendment at all.

This book examines issues and implications of digital and social media marketing for emerging markets. These markets necessitate substantial adaptations of developed theories and approaches employed in the Western world. The book investigates problems specific to emerging markets, while identifying new theoretical constructs and practical applications of digital marketing. It addresses topics such as electronic word of mouth (eWOM), demographic differences in digital marketing, mobile marketing, search engine advertising, among others. A radical increase in both temporal and geographical reach is empowering consumers to exert influence on brands, products, and services. Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and digital media are having a significant impact on the way people communicate and fulfil their socio-economic, emotional and material needs. These technologies are also being harnessed by businesses for various purposes including distribution and selling of goods, retailing of consumer services, customer relationship management, and influencing consumer behaviour by employing digital marketing practices. This book considers this, as it examines the practice and research related to digital and social media marketing.

Explorations in Communication and History addresses the link between what we know and how we know it by tracking the intersection of communication and history. Asking how each discipline has enhanced and hindered our understanding of the other, the book considers what happens to what we know when disciplines engage.