The examination of how privacy expectations of users are respected on platforms has focused on the perspective of a single individual in relation to the firm. Platforms are argued to have a fiduciary duty in being entrusted with user data to, at a minimum, not harm the user and in the best case to only use the data in the individual’s interest out of a duty of care or loyalty. 
 
 However, recent work has pushed us to think broadly about both data and platform governance. Platforms have an obligation beyond the typical long-term value of the firm; platforms have an obligation to the platform-as-exchange in their governance policies. As such, I argue that platforms must have data governance policies that respect the privacy expectations as to the flow of information (who has access to what information and for what purpose ) as well as the integrity of the platform exchange. By situating privacy interests within a broader understanding of the duties of platforms around data governance, this paper will make an economic argument as to how platforms have a duty to respect privacy. This article builds on and contributes to scholarship on platform governance, privacy, data governance, and content moderation. 
 
 References:

  • Vikram R Bhargava and Manuel Velasquez, “Ethics of the Attention Economy: The Problem of Social Media Addiction,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 2020, 1–39.
  •  Neil Richards and Woodrow Hartzog, “A Duty of Loyalty for Privacy Law,” Wash. UL Rev. 99 (2021): 961.
  •  Kirsten Martin, Guo Hong, and Robert Easley, “When Platforms Act Opportunistically: Ethics of Platform Governance,” Working Paper, 2022.
  •  Kirsten Martin, “Understanding Privacy Online: Development of a Social Contract Approach to Privacy,” Journal of Business Ethics 137, no. 3 (2016): 551–69, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2565-9; Helen Nissenbaum, Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life (Stanford University Press, 2010).
  •  Erika M Douglas, “The New Antitrust/Data Privacy Law Interface,” Yale LJF 130 (2020): 647; Erika Douglas, “Data Privacy as a Procompetitive Justification: Antitrust Law and Economic Analysis,” 2022; Martin, Hong, and Easley, “When Platforms Act Opportunistically: Ethics of Platform Governance.”
  •  M Ryan Calo, “Boundaries of Privacy Harm, The,” Ind. LJ 86 (2011): 1131; Ryan Calo, “Against Notice Skepticism in Privacy (and Elsewhere),” Notre Dame Law Review 87 (2012).
  •  Salome Viljoen, “A Relational Theory of Data Governance,” Yale LJ 131 (2021): 573.
  •  Danielle Keats Citron and Mary Anne Franks, “The Internet as a Speech Machine and Other Myths Confounding Section 230 Reform,” U. Chi. Legal F., 2020, 230; Robert Gorwa, Reuben Binns, and Christian Katzenbach, “Algorithmic Content Moderation: Technical and Political Challenges in the Automation of Platform Governance,” Big Data & Society 7, no. 1 (2020): 2053951719897945; David C Gray and Danielle Keats Citron, “The Right to Quantitative Privacy,” Minnesota Law Review 98 (2013).