The Platform Economy and Deliberation in the Digital Public Sphere. Developing a Two-Tier Analytical Framework for Deliberative Systems.

Social media platforms have become central sites for discourses in modern democracies, yet their role within deliberative systems remains questioned (Baker, 2006; Jungherr et al., 2020; Reisach, 2021). This paper aims to address the influence of social media platforms and their economic structures on the legitimacy of digital publics within deliberative systems. Drawing on the systemic turn in deliberative theory (Mansbridge et al., 2012; Parkinson, 2018), the paper develops a two-tier analytical framework for assessing sites within deliberative systems. On the micro-tier, the framework analyzes the contributions of a specific site to the three central functions of deliberative systems, namely the epistemic, ethical, and democratic functions. Thereby, the procedural value of deliberation is integrated within this framework. Second, the macro-tier analysis examines the embeddedness and connectivity of said site within the broader context of the deliberative system. The three central dimensions of systemic interactions are deliberative delegation, systemic guardrails, and the balancing of defects. Thereby, the approach allows for assessing whether deficiencies are neutralized between the micro and macro-tier and whether a site’s deficiencies are mitigated by other parts of the deliberative system. At the same time, the macro-tier allows to analyze whether the site of interest may itself mitigate deficiencies in other parts of the system. The two-tier analytical framework allows for a differentiated analysis of sites within the deliberative system while addressing key criticisms of the systemic turn by incorporating a minimal standard and recognizing the procedural value of deliberation. Applying this framework to social media platforms in Western democracies reveals ambiguous effects. Platforms demonstrate significant democratic potential by enabling marginalized groups (e.g., Black Lives Matter, youth climate movements) and lowering participation thresholds. Yet, the profit-oriented logics of the platform economy, which prioritize data commodification and advertising revenue, systematically undermine social media's deliberative legitimacy. The opaque algorithmic curation, automated content moderation, and the facilitation of disinformation harm epistemic and ethical functions, rather than proliferating them. Following their accumulation logics and their gatekeeping power, tight coupling between platforms and political institutions, as well as the legacy media, compromises regulatory guardrails and journalistic watchdog roles. The analysis demonstrates that social media platforms possess constrained deliberative potential. While their enabling functions are valuable, the platform economy's structural imperatives jeopardize the legitimacy of the digital public sphere. The paper concludes by discussing solutions grounded in deliberative norms: meta-deliberation on platform roles, enhanced transparency and accountability mechanisms, and alternative infrastructures such as decentralized social networks. This contribution bridges platform economy critique with deliberative democracy theory, offering both a refined analytical tool and critical insights for understanding mediated political communication in digital environments.