Structural Limits of Platform Self-Regulation: Human Rights Due Diligence in the Social Media Governance Framework

Abstract

This article examines the structural limits of social media platform self-regulation within the contemporary Business and Human Rights regime. While major platforms formally embed their human rights commitments in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the OECD Guidelines, and sector-specific initiatives such as the Global Network Initiative, the practical effectiveness of these frameworks remains contested. The paper advances the thesis that platform-based human rights governance is structurally constrained by voluntary compliance logics that prioritize procedural alignment and reputational legitimacy over demonstrable human rights outcomes.

Methodologically, the article develops and applies a qualitative, doctrinal–normative research methodology, a comparative analytical matrix that combines structured document analysis with comparative legal assessment. The analysis is grounded in a systematic examination of publicly available corporate human rights policies, transparency reports, and related governance documents issued by selected social media platforms. The matrix is applied to three dominant platforms—Meta, Google, and TikTok—based on publicly available governance documents, oversight mechanisms, and recent regulatory developments.

The findings reveal a consistent pattern: while platforms articulate sophisticated human rights policies and due diligence processes, significant deficiencies emerge in impact mitigation, accountability, and access to remedy. Recent policy reversals and enforcement proceedings further illustrate the fragility of voluntary safeguards. The article argues that the EU’s shift from soft-law expectations to binding due diligence obligations represents a structural recalibration of corporate human rights governance, transforming reputational accountability into enforceable legal responsibility.