Rapport in opdracht van het Commissariaat voor de Media.

The introduction of algorithmic filtering and artificial intel­ligence in news dissemination has fundamentally changed the way news is consumed and distributed. While there is a clear benefit to the user, by making relevant stories accessi­ble and therefore providing a way forward to manage the information overload, many have expressed concerns that it also leads to atomized societies where citizens are locked in filter bubbles. In this report we set out to answer the ques­tion: Do filter bubbles exist in the Netherlands?

Opinie in de Volkskrant

Working paper of the Transatlantic High Level Working Group on Content Moderation Online and Freedom of Expression

Working paper of the Transatlantic High Level Working Group on Content Moderation Online and Freedom of Expression

In his Opinion in Pelham (C-467/17) Advocate General Szpunar suggests that the use of samples from sound recordings is not permitted under the European copyright rules. While applying an extensive interpretation of the scope of the rights of phonogram producers, he rejects an extensive interpretation of the quotation exception and limits the role of fundamental rights as external checks to copyright law. Despite its merits, there are key aspects of the Opinion that raise concerns: a too broad interpretation of the reproduction right; and an unduly strict view of copyright exceptions – especially quotation – and the role of fundamental rights in shaping the scope of copyright protection. On those points, we suggest that the Court does not follow the Opinion.

On 13 September 2018, the German Federal Court of Justice referred preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, including the question whether YouTube performs acts of communication to the public when its users upload unauthorized content onto this platform.

Preview of an In-Focus edition of the World Trends in Freedom and Expression and Media Development

The increasing digitalization of societies has led to unprecedented opportunities to seek, receive and impart political information and ideas, which are the lifeblood of elections. The internet has made it easier for politicians, political parties and the electorate to communicate with each other more directly and more quickly than at any point in history. The accuracy of information can be checked and corrected faster, more thoroughly and by a greater number of actors than ever before. But there are also growing concerns about the effects on public debate arising from misuse of digital technologies and fragmentation in the communications environment. Political micro-targeting of individual voters is driven by aggregated personal data, which is not always obtained in lawful ways. Little effort is required to generate disinformation and for it to go viral. New digitally-enabled tactics in political funding, campaigning and advertising, often lacking in transparency, reduce the transparency of information during elections. Meanwhile journalists, whose output can empower the electorate, are under increasing attack.

First working paper of the Transatlantic High Level Working Group on Content Moderation Online and Freedom of Expression

Vaste Commissie voor Economische Zaken en Klimaat, Tweede Kamer

This opinion is based on a keynote speech delivered at the KEI Seminar, "Appraising the WIPO Broadcast treaty and its Implications on Access to Culture", Geneva, 3-4 October 2018.

The Broadcasting Treaty that has been discussed at WIPO for over twenty years, seems to be reaching a dead end. The Treaty that aims at extending the legal protection of broadcasters to the digital realm, suffers from three serious flaws: one economic, one conceptual and one pragmatic. Due to the decreasing technical costs of broadcasting, the economic case for granting special rights to broadcasters is weakening. Moreover, properly defining the act of ‘broadcasting’ that would give rise to legal protection, is highly problematic. Finally, no real and urgent need for a new right seems to exist, in light of current legal regimes that broadcasters already rely on under national law. Perhaps the time has come to abandon work on the WIPO Broadcasting Treaty, and move on.

In aanloop naar de Europese parlementsverkiezingen van mei 2019 heeft de Europese Commissie haar inspanningen in de bestrijding van online desinformatie opgevoerd. Veel hoop is daarbij gevestigd op een initiatief van zelfregulering door online platforms en de advertentie-industrie in de vorm van een Code of Practice. In dit artikel wordt de rol die de Europese Commissie momenteel voor zichzelf weggelegd ziet voor zelfregulering kritisch beschouwd en wordt aansluiting gezocht bij een pleidooi voor een meer gezamenlijke aanpak van het probleem van online desinformatie.

Voor online politieke microtargeting wordt het online-gedrag van mensen in kaart gebracht en worden de verzamelde gegevens gebruikt om mensen gerichte politieke advertenties te tonen. Microtargeting is vanuit de VS komen overwaaien naar Europa en heeft voor- en nadelen voor de democratie. Microtargeting kan politieke partijen helpen om mensen effectief te bereiken en kan politieke betrokkenheid stimuleren. Maar microtargeting kan ook een bedreiging vormen voor de democratie. Zo kan een politieke partij zich verschillend voordoen aan verschillende mensen. Bovendien bedreigt het verzamelen van persoonsgegevens onze privacy. Dit artikel brengt de beloftes en bedreigingen van microtargeting voor de democratie in kaart en schetst mogelijkheden voor beleidsmakers om het gebruik van microtargeting te reguleren.