Digital Services Act (DSA) - Page 2 of 4

Greening Lex Informatica: An Exploration of Climate Risks as Systemic Risks under the Digital Services Act download

2025

Abstract

The internet infrastructure and business models are proving to be resource-intensive, which is having a detrimental impact on the climate and the environment. Furthermore, a small group of dominant service providers control nearly all online activity. This thesis explores how the Digital Services Act (DSA) can contribute to reducing climate risks through its systemic risk regulation framework. More specifically, it focuses on direct climate risks relating to material environmental impacts, for example, stemming from emissions from platform operations and infrastructure. Placing this discussion within the context of evolving environmental protection within the EU through sustainable as well as digital regulation, and the developments of fundamental rights in this sense, shows the broader context which is related to the way in which environmental protection can be incorporated into platform regulation under the DSA. Additionally, by examining the potential of systemic risk provisions for addressing direct climate risks, this thesis enriches the ongoing discourse on how to define and scope systemic risks under the DSA. Through a textual analysis of Article 34, it is shown that the DSA can integrate the assessment of climate risks under its provisions, even though it does not explicitly refer to them. The broader regulatory context of the DSA, the online versus offline debate, and the broad nature of systemic risk support this finding. Furthermore, an examination of published systemic risk reports highlights the current and likely future relevance of including environmental factors, particularly in the context of public health and consumer protection. The analysis also sheds light on practical ways to put the DSA framework into practice, addressing climate risk mitigation under Article 35 DSA, and builds upon the broader framework that encompasses relevant actors and offers practical solutions, including delegated acts, voluntary standards, and codes of conduct. By holding the largest platforms accountable, the DSA can address the direct climate risks associated with their activities. By building on fundamental rights, such as the right to private life, and by drawing on the broader EU regulatory framework of the Charter and the DSA’s provisions, a shift towards environmental protection through platform regulation can be put in place.

Links

Final_Thesis_Gabriela_Trogrlic

climate risks, Digital Services Act (DSA)

RIS

TY  - GEN
AU  - Trogrlić, G.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-01-06
T1  - Greening Lex Informatica: An Exploration of Climate Risks as Systemic Risks under the Digital Services Act
AB  - The internet infrastructure and business models are proving to be resource-intensive, which is having a detrimental impact on the climate and the environment. Furthermore, a small group of dominant service providers control nearly all online activity. This thesis explores how the Digital Services Act (DSA) can contribute to reducing climate risks through its systemic risk regulation framework. More specifically, it focuses on direct climate risks relating to material environmental impacts, for example, stemming from emissions from platform operations and infrastructure.
Placing this discussion within the context of evolving environmental protection within the EU through sustainable as well as digital regulation, and the developments of fundamental rights in this sense, shows the broader context which is related to the way in which environmental protection can be incorporated into platform regulation under the DSA. Additionally, by examining the potential of systemic risk provisions for addressing direct climate risks, this thesis enriches the ongoing discourse on how to define and scope systemic risks under the DSA. Through a textual analysis of Article 34, it is shown that the DSA can integrate the assessment of climate risks under its provisions, even though it does not explicitly refer to them. The broader regulatory context of the DSA, the online versus offline debate, and the broad nature of systemic risk support this finding. Furthermore, an examination of published systemic risk reports highlights the current and likely future relevance of including environmental factors, particularly in the context of public health and consumer protection. The analysis also sheds light on practical ways to put the DSA framework into practice, addressing climate risk mitigation under Article 35 DSA, and builds upon the broader framework that encompasses relevant actors and offers practical solutions, including delegated acts, voluntary standards, and codes of conduct.
By holding the largest platforms accountable, the DSA can address the direct climate risks associated with their activities. By building on fundamental rights, such as the right to private life, and by drawing on the broader EU regulatory framework of the Charter and the DSA’s provisions, a shift towards environmental protection through platform regulation can be put in place.
K1  - climate risks
K1  - Digital Services Act (DSA)
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Other{nokey,
	title = {Greening Lex Informatica: An Exploration of Climate Risks as Systemic Risks under the Digital Services Act},
	author = {Trogrlić, G.},
	url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publications/greening-lex-informatica-an-exploration-of-climate-risks-as-systemic-risks-under-the-digital-services-act/final_thesis_gabriela_trogrlic/},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-01-06},
	abstract = {The internet infrastructure and business models are proving to be resource-intensive, which is having a detrimental impact on the climate and the environment. Furthermore, a small group of dominant service providers control nearly all online activity. This thesis explores how the Digital Services Act (DSA) can contribute to reducing climate risks through its systemic risk regulation framework. More specifically, it focuses on direct climate risks relating to material environmental impacts, for example, stemming from emissions from platform operations and infrastructure.
Placing this discussion within the context of evolving environmental protection within the EU through sustainable as well as digital regulation, and the developments of fundamental rights in this sense, shows the broader context which is related to the way in which environmental protection can be incorporated into platform regulation under the DSA. Additionally, by examining the potential of systemic risk provisions for addressing direct climate risks, this thesis enriches the ongoing discourse on how to define and scope systemic risks under the DSA. Through a textual analysis of Article 34, it is shown that the DSA can integrate the assessment of climate risks under its provisions, even though it does not explicitly refer to them. The broader regulatory context of the DSA, the online versus offline debate, and the broad nature of systemic risk support this finding. Furthermore, an examination of published systemic risk reports highlights the current and likely future relevance of including environmental factors, particularly in the context of public health and consumer protection. The analysis also sheds light on practical ways to put the DSA framework into practice, addressing climate risk mitigation under Article 35 DSA, and builds upon the broader framework that encompasses relevant actors and offers practical solutions, including delegated acts, voluntary standards, and codes of conduct.
By holding the largest platforms accountable, the DSA can address the direct climate risks associated with their activities. By building on fundamental rights, such as the right to private life, and by drawing on the broader EU regulatory framework of the Charter and the DSA’s provisions, a shift towards environmental protection through platform regulation can be put in place.},
	keywords = {climate risks, Digital Services Act (DSA)},
}

Save .bib

Contesting personalized recommender systems: a cross-country analysis of user preferences external link

Starke, C., Metikoš, L., Helberger, N. & Vreese, C.H. de

Information, Communication & Society, 2024

Abstract

Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) such as Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube wield substantial influence over digital information flows using sophisticated algorithmic recommender systems (RS). As these systems curate personalized content, concerns have emerged about their propensity to amplify polarizing or inappropriate content, spread misinformation, and infringe on users’ privacy. To address these concerns, the European Union (EU) has recently introduced a new regulatory framework through the Digital Services Act (DSA). These proposed policies are designed to bolster user agency by offering contestability mechanisms against personalized RS. As their effectiveness ultimately requires individual users to take specific actions, this empirical study investigates users’ intention to contest personalized RS. The results of a pre-registered survey across six countries – Brazil, Germany, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and the USA – involving 6,217 respondents yield key insights: (1) Approximately 20% of users would opt out of using personalized RS, (2) the intention for algorithmic contestation is associated with individual characteristics such as users’ attitudes towards and awareness of personalized RS as well as their privacy concerns, (3) German respondents are particularly inclined to contest personalized RS. We conclude that amending Art. 38 of the DSA may contribute to leveraging its effectiveness in fostering accessible user contestation and algorithmic transparency.

Links

Algorithmic contestation, Digital Services Act (DSA), Personalisation, recommender systems

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Starke, C.
AU  - Metikoš, L.
AU  - Helberger, N.
AU  - Vreese, C.H. de
PY  - 2024
DA  - 2024-07-03
T1  - Contesting personalized recommender systems: a cross-country analysis of user preferences
JO  - Information, Communication & Society
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2363926
AB  - Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) such as Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube wield substantial influence over digital information flows using sophisticated algorithmic recommender systems (RS). As these systems curate personalized content, concerns have emerged about their propensity to amplify polarizing or inappropriate content, spread misinformation, and infringe on users’ privacy. To address these concerns, the European Union (EU) has recently introduced a new regulatory framework through the Digital Services Act (DSA). These proposed policies are designed to bolster user agency by offering contestability mechanisms against personalized RS. As their effectiveness ultimately requires individual users to take specific actions, this empirical study investigates users’ intention to contest personalized RS. The results of a pre-registered survey across six countries – Brazil, Germany, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and the USA – involving 6,217 respondents yield key insights: (1) Approximately 20% of users would opt out of using personalized RS, (2) the intention for algorithmic contestation is associated with individual characteristics such as users’ attitudes towards and awareness of personalized RS as well as their privacy concerns, (3) German respondents are particularly inclined to contest personalized RS. We conclude that amending Art. 38 of the DSA may contribute to leveraging its effectiveness in fostering accessible user contestation and algorithmic transparency.
K1  - Algorithmic contestation
K1  - Digital Services Act (DSA)
K1  - Personalisation
K1  - recommender systems
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Contesting personalized recommender systems: a cross-country analysis of user preferences},
	author = {Starke, C. and Metikoš, L. and Helberger, N. and Vreese, C.H. de},
	url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2363926},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2363926},
	year = {2024},
	date = {2024-07-03},
	journal = {Information, Communication & Society},
	abstract = {Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) such as Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube wield substantial influence over digital information flows using sophisticated algorithmic recommender systems (RS). As these systems curate personalized content, concerns have emerged about their propensity to amplify polarizing or inappropriate content, spread misinformation, and infringe on users’ privacy. To address these concerns, the European Union (EU) has recently introduced a new regulatory framework through the Digital Services Act (DSA). These proposed policies are designed to bolster user agency by offering contestability mechanisms against personalized RS. As their effectiveness ultimately requires individual users to take specific actions, this empirical study investigates users’ intention to contest personalized RS. The results of a pre-registered survey across six countries – Brazil, Germany, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and the USA – involving 6,217 respondents yield key insights: (1) Approximately 20% of users would opt out of using personalized RS, (2) the intention for algorithmic contestation is associated with individual characteristics such as users’ attitudes towards and awareness of personalized RS as well as their privacy concerns, (3) German respondents are particularly inclined to contest personalized RS. We conclude that amending Art. 38 of the DSA may contribute to leveraging its effectiveness in fostering accessible user contestation and algorithmic transparency.},
	keywords = {Algorithmic contestation, Digital Services Act (DSA), Personalisation, recommender systems},
}

Save .bib

How to design data access for researchers: A legal and software development perspective

Drunen, M. van & Noroozian, A.

Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 52, 2024

Abstract

Public scrutiny of platforms has been limited by a lack of transparency. In response, EU law increasingly requires platforms to provide data to researchers. The Digital Services Act and the proposed Regulation on the Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising in particular require platforms to provide access to data through ad libraries and in response to data access requests. However, these obligations leave platforms considerable discretion to determine how access to data is provided. As the history of platforms’ self-regulated data access projects shows, the technical choices involved in designing data access significantly affect how researchers can use the provided data to scrutinise platforms. Ignoring the way data access is designed therefore creates a danger that platforms’ ability to limit research into their services simply shifts from controlling what data is available to researchers, to how data access is provided. This article explores how the Digital Services Act and proposed Political Advertising Regulation should be used to control the operationalisation of data access obligations that enable researchers to scrutinise platforms. It argues the operationalisation of data access regimes should not only be seen as a legal problem, but also as a software design problem. To that end it explores how software development principles may inform the operationalisation of data access obligations. The article closes by exploring the legal mechanisms available in the Digital Services Act and proposed Political Advertising Regulation to exercise control over the design of data access regimes, and makes five recommendations for ways in which these mechanisms should be used to enable research into platforms.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105946

data access, Digital Services Act (DSA), Platforms, Transparency

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Drunen, M. van
AU  - Noroozian, A.
PY  - 2024
DA  - 2024-04-01
T1  - How to design data access for researchers: A legal and software development perspective
JO  - Computer Law & Security Review
VL  - 52
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105946
AB  - Public scrutiny of platforms has been limited by a lack of transparency. In response, EU law increasingly requires platforms to provide data to researchers. The Digital Services Act and the proposed Regulation on the Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising in particular require platforms to provide access to data through ad libraries and in response to data access requests. However, these obligations leave platforms considerable discretion to determine how access to data is provided. As the history of platforms’ self-regulated data access projects shows, the technical choices involved in designing data access significantly affect how researchers can use the provided data to scrutinise platforms. Ignoring the way data access is designed therefore creates a danger that platforms’ ability to limit research into their services simply shifts from controlling what data is available to researchers, to how data access is provided. This article explores how the Digital Services Act and proposed Political Advertising Regulation should be used to control the operationalisation of data access obligations that enable researchers to scrutinise platforms. It argues the operationalisation of data access regimes should not only be seen as a legal problem, but also as a software design problem. To that end it explores how software development principles may inform the operationalisation of data access obligations. The article closes by exploring the legal mechanisms available in the Digital Services Act and proposed Political Advertising Regulation to exercise control over the design of data access regimes, and makes five recommendations for ways in which these mechanisms should be used to enable research into platforms.
K1  - data access
K1  - Digital Services Act (DSA)
K1  - Platforms
K1  - Transparency
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {How to design data access for researchers: A legal and software development perspective},
	author = {Drunen, M. van and Noroozian, A.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105946},
	year = {2024},
	date = {2024-04-01},
	journal = {Computer Law & Security Review},
	volume = {52},
	abstract = {Public scrutiny of platforms has been limited by a lack of transparency. In response, EU law increasingly requires platforms to provide data to researchers. The Digital Services Act and the proposed Regulation on the Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising in particular require platforms to provide access to data through ad libraries and in response to data access requests. However, these obligations leave platforms considerable discretion to determine how access to data is provided. As the history of platforms’ self-regulated data access projects shows, the technical choices involved in designing data access significantly affect how researchers can use the provided data to scrutinise platforms. Ignoring the way data access is designed therefore creates a danger that platforms’ ability to limit research into their services simply shifts from controlling what data is available to researchers, to how data access is provided. This article explores how the Digital Services Act and proposed Political Advertising Regulation should be used to control the operationalisation of data access obligations that enable researchers to scrutinise platforms. It argues the operationalisation of data access regimes should not only be seen as a legal problem, but also as a software design problem. To that end it explores how software development principles may inform the operationalisation of data access obligations. The article closes by exploring the legal mechanisms available in the Digital Services Act and proposed Political Advertising Regulation to exercise control over the design of data access regimes, and makes five recommendations for ways in which these mechanisms should be used to enable research into platforms.},
	keywords = {data access, Digital Services Act (DSA), Platforms, Transparency},
}

Save .bib

From the DMCA to the DSA: A Transatlantic Dialogue on Online Platform Regulation and Copyright external link

Quintais, J.

Verfassungsblog, 2024

Links

https://verfassungsblog.de/from-the-dmca-to-the-dsa/?s=09

Copyright, Digital Services Act (DSA), DMCA, Online platforms

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Copyright Content Moderation in the European Union: State of the Art, Ways Forward and Policy Recommendations external link

Quintais, J., Katzenbach, C., Schwemer, S., Dergacheva, D., Riis, T., Mezei, P., Harkai, I. & Magalhães, J.C.

IIC, vol. 55, pp: 157-177, 2024

Abstract

This Opinion describes and summarises the results of the interdisciplinary research carried out by the authors during the course of a three-year project on intermediaries’ practices regarding copyright content moderation. This research includes the mapping of the EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices regarding copyright content moderation, the evaluation and measuring of the impact of moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity, and a set of policy recommendations. Our recommendations touch on the following topics: the definition of “online content-sharing service provider”; the recognition and operationalisation of user rights; the complementary nature of complaint and redress safeguards; the scope of permissible preventive filtering; the clarification of the relationship between Art. 17 of the new Copyright Directive and the Digital Services Act; monetisation and restrictive content moderation actions; recommender systems and copyright content moderation; transparency and data access for researchers; trade secret protection and transparency of content moderation systems; the relationship between the copyright acquis, the Digital Services Act and the upcoming Artificial Intelligence Act; and human competences in copyright content moderation.

Links

Content moderation, Copyright, Digital Services Act (DSA), Digital Single Market, intermediaries, Platforms

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Quintais, J.
AU  - Katzenbach, C.
AU  - Schwemer, S.
AU  - Dergacheva, D.
AU  - Riis, T.
AU  - Mezei, P.
AU  - Harkai, I.
AU  - Magalhães, J.C.
PY  - 2024
DA  - 2024-01-01
T1  - Copyright Content Moderation in the European Union: State of the Art, Ways Forward and Policy Recommendations
JO  - IIC
VL  - 55
SP  - 157-177
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01409-5
AB  - This Opinion describes and summarises the results of the interdisciplinary research carried out by the authors during the course of a three-year project on intermediaries’ practices regarding copyright content moderation. This research includes the mapping of the EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices regarding copyright content moderation, the evaluation and measuring of the impact of moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity, and a set of policy recommendations. Our recommendations touch on the following topics: the definition of “online content-sharing service provider”; the recognition and operationalisation of user rights; the complementary nature of complaint and redress safeguards; the scope of permissible preventive filtering; the clarification of the relationship between Art. 17 of the new Copyright Directive and the Digital Services Act; monetisation and restrictive content moderation actions; recommender systems and copyright content moderation; transparency and data access for researchers; trade secret protection and transparency of content moderation systems; the relationship between the copyright acquis, the Digital Services Act and the upcoming Artificial Intelligence Act; and human competences in copyright content moderation.
K1  - Content moderation
K1  - Copyright
K1  - Digital Services Act (DSA)
K1  - Digital Single Market
K1  - intermediaries
K1  - Platforms
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Copyright Content Moderation in the European Union: State of the Art, Ways Forward and Policy Recommendations},
	author = {Quintais, J. and Katzenbach, C. and Schwemer, S. and Dergacheva, D. and Riis, T. and Mezei, P. and Harkai, I. and Magalhães, J.C.},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-023-01409-5},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01409-5},
	year = {2024},
	date = {2024-01-01},
	journal = {IIC},
	volume = {55},
	pages = {157-177},
	abstract = {This Opinion describes and summarises the results of the interdisciplinary research carried out by the authors during the course of a three-year project on intermediaries’ practices regarding copyright content moderation. This research includes the mapping of the EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices regarding copyright content moderation, the evaluation and measuring of the impact of moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity, and a set of policy recommendations. Our recommendations touch on the following topics: the definition of “online content-sharing service provider”; the recognition and operationalisation of user rights; the complementary nature of complaint and redress safeguards; the scope of permissible preventive filtering; the clarification of the relationship between Art. 17 of the new Copyright Directive and the Digital Services Act; monetisation and restrictive content moderation actions; recommender systems and copyright content moderation; transparency and data access for researchers; trade secret protection and transparency of content moderation systems; the relationship between the copyright acquis, the Digital Services Act and the upcoming Artificial Intelligence Act; and human competences in copyright content moderation.},
	keywords = {Content moderation, Copyright, Digital Services Act (DSA), Digital Single Market, intermediaries, Platforms},
}

Save .bib

Opinie: De DSA en desinformatie: meer dan censuur alleen download

Leerssen, P.

Mediaforum, num: 5, pp: 157, 2023

Links

Opinie_Mediaforum_2023_5

censuur, Digital Services Act (DSA)

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Using Terms and Conditions to apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation

Quintais, J., Appelman, N. & Fahy, R.

German Law Journal, 2023

Abstract

Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platformʼs terms and conditions (T&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards. If this is possible Article 14 may fulfil its revolutionary potential.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.53

Content moderation, Digital Services Act (DSA), Freedom of expression, Online platforms, platform regulation, terms and conditions

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Quintais, J.
AU  - Appelman, N.
AU  - Fahy, R.
PY  - 2023
DA  - 2023-07-11
T1  - Using Terms and Conditions to apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation
JO  - German Law Journal
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.53
AB  - Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platformʼs terms and conditions (T&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards. If this is possible Article 14 may fulfil its revolutionary potential.
K1  - Content moderation
K1  - Digital Services Act (DSA)
K1  - Freedom of expression
K1  - Online platforms
K1  - platform regulation
K1  - terms and conditions
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Using Terms and Conditions to apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation},
	author = {Quintais, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.53},
	year = {2023},
	date = {2023-07-11},
	journal = {German Law Journal},
	abstract = {Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platformʼs terms and conditions (T&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards. If this is possible Article 14 may fulfil its revolutionary potential.},
	keywords = {Content moderation, Digital Services Act (DSA), Freedom of expression, Online platforms, platform regulation, terms and conditions},
}

Save .bib

Improving Data Access for Researchers in the Digital Services Act external link

Dergacheva, D., Katzenbach, C., Schwemer, S. & Quintais, J.

2023

Abstract

Joint submission in response to the Call for Evidence on the Delegated Regulation on data access provided for in the Digital Services Act (DSA). Article 40 DSA is a crucial provision to operationalize the regulation’s risk mitigation provisions vis-a-vis very large online platforms (VLOPs) and very large search engines (VLOSEs). In essence, Article 40 DSA enables data access to Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs) or the Commission, “vetted researchers” and other researchers, provided certain conditions are met. Our submission is predominantly concerned with the data access for vetted researchers and researchers in relation to VLOPs.

Links

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4465846

academic research, data access, Digital Services Act (DSA), Online platforms

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Online publication{nokey,
	title = {Improving Data Access for Researchers in the Digital Services Act},
	author = {Dergacheva, D. and Katzenbach, C. and Schwemer, S. and Quintais, J.},
	url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4465846},
	year = {2023},
	date = {2023-06-01},
	abstract = {Joint submission in response to the Call for Evidence on the Delegated Regulation on data access provided for in the Digital Services Act (DSA). Article 40 DSA is a crucial provision to operationalize the regulation’s risk mitigation provisions vis-a-vis very large online platforms (VLOPs) and very large search engines (VLOSEs). In essence, Article 40 DSA enables data access to Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs) or the Commission, “vetted researchers” and other researchers, provided certain conditions are met. Our submission is predominantly concerned with the data access for vetted researchers and researchers in relation to VLOPs.},
	keywords = {academic research, data access, Digital Services Act (DSA), Online platforms},
}

Save .bib

An end to shadow banning? Transparency rights in the Digital Services Act between content moderation and curation download

Leerssen, P.

Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 48, 2023

Abstract

This paper offers a legal perspective on the phenomenon of shadow banning: content moderation sanctions which are undetectable to those affected. Drawing on recent social science research, it connects current concerns about shadow banning to novel visibility management techniques in content moderation, such as delisting and demotion. Conventional moderation techniques such as outright content removal or account suspension can be observed by those affected, but these new visibility often cannot. This lends newfound significance to the legal question of moderation transparency rights. The EU Digital Services Act (DSA) is analysed in this light, as the first major legislation to regulate transparency of visibility remedies. In effect, its due process framework prohibits shadow banning with only limited exceptions. In doing so, the DSA surfaces tensions between two competing models for content moderation: as rule-bound administration or as adversarial security conflict. I discuss possible interpretations and trade-offs for this regime, and then turn to a more fundamental problem: how to define visibility reduction as a category of content moderation actions. The concept of visibility reduction or ‘demotions’ is central to both the shadow banning imaginary and to the DSA's safeguards, but its meaning is far from straightforward. Responding to claims that demotion is entirely relative, and therefore not actionable as a category of content moderation sanctions, I show how visibility reduction can still be regulated when defined as ex post adjustments to engagement-based relevance scores. Still, regulating demotion in this way will not cover all exercises of ranking power, since it manifests not only in individual cases of moderation but also through structural acts of content curation; not just by reducing visibility, but by producing visibility.

Links

content curation, Content moderation, Digital Services Act (DSA), Online platforms, Transparency

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Leerssen, P.
PY  - 2023
DA  - 2023-04-11
T1  - An end to shadow banning? Transparency rights in the Digital Services Act between content moderation and curation
JO  - Computer Law & Security Review
VL  - 48
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105790
AB  - This paper offers a legal perspective on the phenomenon of shadow banning: content moderation sanctions which are undetectable to those affected. Drawing on recent social science research, it connects current concerns about shadow banning to novel visibility management techniques in content moderation, such as delisting and demotion. Conventional moderation techniques such as outright content removal or account suspension can be observed by those affected, but these new visibility often cannot. This lends newfound significance to the legal question of moderation transparency rights. The EU Digital Services Act (DSA) is analysed in this light, as the first major legislation to regulate transparency of visibility remedies. In effect, its due process framework prohibits shadow banning with only limited exceptions. In doing so, the DSA surfaces tensions between two competing models for content moderation: as rule-bound administration or as adversarial security conflict. I discuss possible interpretations and trade-offs for this regime, and then turn to a more fundamental problem: how to define visibility reduction as a category of content moderation actions. The concept of visibility reduction or ‘demotions’ is central to both the shadow banning imaginary and to the DSA\'s safeguards, but its meaning is far from straightforward. Responding to claims that demotion is entirely relative, and therefore not actionable as a category of content moderation sanctions, I show how visibility reduction can still be regulated when defined as ex post adjustments to engagement-based relevance scores. Still, regulating demotion in this way will not cover all exercises of ranking power, since it manifests not only in individual cases of moderation but also through structural acts of content curation; not just by reducing visibility, but by producing visibility.
K1  - content curation
K1  - Content moderation
K1  - Digital Services Act (DSA)
K1  - Online platforms
K1  - Transparency
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {An end to shadow banning? Transparency rights in the Digital Services Act between content moderation and curation},
	author = {Leerssen, P.},
	url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publications/comment-an-end-to-shadow-banning-transparency-rights-in-the-digital-services-act-between-content-moderation-and-curation/endtoshadowbanning/},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105790},
	year = {2023},
	date = {2023-04-11},
	journal = {Computer Law & Security Review},
	volume = {48},
	abstract = {This paper offers a legal perspective on the phenomenon of shadow banning: content moderation sanctions which are undetectable to those affected. Drawing on recent social science research, it connects current concerns about shadow banning to novel visibility management techniques in content moderation, such as delisting and demotion. Conventional moderation techniques such as outright content removal or account suspension can be observed by those affected, but these new visibility often cannot. This lends newfound significance to the legal question of moderation transparency rights. The EU Digital Services Act (DSA) is analysed in this light, as the first major legislation to regulate transparency of visibility remedies. In effect, its due process framework prohibits shadow banning with only limited exceptions. In doing so, the DSA surfaces tensions between two competing models for content moderation: as rule-bound administration or as adversarial security conflict. I discuss possible interpretations and trade-offs for this regime, and then turn to a more fundamental problem: how to define visibility reduction as a category of content moderation actions. The concept of visibility reduction or ‘demotions’ is central to both the shadow banning imaginary and to the DSA\'s safeguards, but its meaning is far from straightforward. Responding to claims that demotion is entirely relative, and therefore not actionable as a category of content moderation sanctions, I show how visibility reduction can still be regulated when defined as ex post adjustments to engagement-based relevance scores. Still, regulating demotion in this way will not cover all exercises of ranking power, since it manifests not only in individual cases of moderation but also through structural acts of content curation; not just by reducing visibility, but by producing visibility.},
	keywords = {content curation, Content moderation, Digital Services Act (DSA), Online platforms, Transparency},
}

Save .bib

Copyright Content Moderation in the EU: Conclusions and Recommendations download

Quintais, J., Katzenbach, C., Schwemer, S., Dergacheva, D., Riis, T., Mezei, P. & Harkai, I.

2023

Abstract

This report is a deliverable in the reCreating Europe project. The report describes and summarizes the results of our research on the mapping of the EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices on copyright content moderation and removal. In particular, this report summarizes the results of our previous deliverables and tasks, namely: (1) our Final Report on mapping of EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices on copyright content moderation and removal; and (2) our Final Evaluation and Measuring Report - impact of moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity. Our previous reports contain a detailed description of the legal and empirical methodology underpinning our research and findings. This report focuses on bringing together these findings in a concise format and advancing policy recommendations.

Links

Content moderation, Copyright, Digital Services Act (DSA), Digital Single Market, intermediaries, Online platforms, terms and conditions

RIS

TY  - RPRT
AU  - Quintais, J.
AU  - Katzenbach, C.
AU  - Schwemer, S.
AU  - Dergacheva, D.
AU  - Riis, T.
AU  - Mezei, P.
AU  - Harkai, I.
PY  - 2023
DA  - 2023-03-30
T1  - Copyright Content Moderation in the EU: Conclusions and Recommendations
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4403423&s=09
AB  - This report is a deliverable in the reCreating Europe project. The report describes and summarizes the results of our research on the mapping of the EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices on copyright content moderation and removal. In particular, this report summarizes the results of our previous deliverables and tasks, namely: (1) our Final Report on mapping of EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices on copyright content moderation and removal; and (2) our Final Evaluation and Measuring Report - impact of moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity.
Our previous reports contain a detailed description of the legal and empirical methodology underpinning our research and findings. This report focuses on bringing together these findings in a concise format and advancing policy recommendations.
K1  - Content moderation
K1  - Copyright
K1  - Digital Services Act (DSA)
K1  - Digital Single Market
K1  - intermediaries
K1  - Online platforms
K1  - terms and conditions
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Report{nokey,
	title = {Copyright Content Moderation in the EU: Conclusions and Recommendations},
	author = {Quintais, J. and Katzenbach, C. and Schwemer, S. and Dergacheva, D. and Riis, T. and Mezei, P. and Harkai, I.},
	year = {2023},
	date = {2023-03-30},
	abstract = {This report is a deliverable in the reCreating Europe project. The report describes and summarizes the results of our research on the mapping of the EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices on copyright content moderation and removal. In particular, this report summarizes the results of our previous deliverables and tasks, namely: (1) our Final Report on mapping of EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices on copyright content moderation and removal; and (2) our Final Evaluation and Measuring Report - impact of moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity.
Our previous reports contain a detailed description of the legal and empirical methodology underpinning our research and findings. This report focuses on bringing together these findings in a concise format and advancing policy recommendations.},
	keywords = {Content moderation, Copyright, Digital Services Act (DSA), Digital Single Market, intermediaries, Online platforms, terms and conditions},
}

Save .bib