Using Terms and Conditions to apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation: Is Article 12 DSA a Paper Tiger? external link
Digital Services Act (DSA), frontpage, Fundamental rights, Online platforms, terms and conditions
Keyword: Online platforms
The Interplay between the Digital Services Act and Sector Regulation: How Special is Copyright? external link
Abstract
On 15 December 2020, the European Commission published its proposal for a Regulation on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act). It carries out a regulatory overhaul of the 21-year- old horizontal rules on intermediary liability in the Directive and introduces new due diligence obligations for intermediary services.
Our analysis illuminates an important point that has so far received little attention: how would the Digital Services Act’s rules interact with existing sector-specific lex specialis rules? In this paper, we look specifically at the intersection of the Digital Services Act with the regime for online content sharing service providers (OCSSPs) set forth in art. 17 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive). At first glance, these regimes do not appear to overlap as the rules on copyright are lex specialis to the Digital Services Act. A closer look shows a more complex and nuanced picture. Our analysis concludes that the DSA will apply to OCSSPs insofar as it contains rules that regulate matters not covered by art. 17 CDSM Directive, as well as specific rules on matters where art. 17 leaves margin of discretion to Member States. This includes, to varying degrees, rules in the DSA relating to the liability of intermediary providers and to due diligence obligations for online platforms of different sizes. Importantly, we consider that such rules apply even where art. 17 CDSM Directive contains specific (but less precise) regulation on the matter.
From a normative perspective, this might be a desirable outcome, to the extent that the DSA aims to establish “uniform rules for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, where fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter are effectively protected”. Based on our analysis, we suggest a number of clarifications that might be help achieve that goal.
Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Content moderation, Copyright, Digital Services Act (DSA), frontpage, Online platforms
RIS
Bibtex
Notions of Disinformation and Related Concepts external link
Abstract
Previous work of the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) has shown that the definitions used by the European Commission, Member States and online platforms for the different phenomena of disinformation deviate and should be further clarified in order to ensure a consistent approach. The aim of this Report is to provide for clearer and more uniform definitions of disinformation to ensure optimal guidance to all actors involved and contribute to more consistency within the national approaches. The Report also aims to assist in coming to clearer definitions and ensure more consistency and uniformity regarding the notions of political advertising and issue-based advertising. The information for this report was collected through various means including an examination of existing academic research, interviews with relevant stakeholders, particularly from the civil society and media. The scope of the survey was not limited to the single notion of disinformation but also covered concepts that are usually associated with disinformation such as misinformation, malinformation, fake news, false news, false information, and foreign influence operations. Information was collected on definitions, interpretations, and understandings of disinformation and related concepts available in the legislation and other regulation including (self-regulatory) codes and guidelines of ERGA members and observers. The Report concludes with identifying key relevant elements and characteristics of the notions of disinformation, political advertising, and related concepts, and includes recommendations to assist in coming to clearer definitions regarding disinformation, political advertising and issue-based advertising.
disinformatie, Mediarecht, Online platforms
RIS
Bibtex
Germany proposes Europe’s first diversity rules for social media platforms external link
Zelfregulering door online platforms: een waar wondermiddel tegen online desinformatie? external link
Abstract
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.
desinformatie, frontpage, Mediarecht, Online platforms, Vrijheid van meningsuiting, zelfregulering
RIS
Bibtex
Online platforms and the advertising industry deliver EU Code of Practice on disinformation external link
Abstract
The newsletter and Merlin Database entry describe the most recent European Union Code of Practice on disinformation and fake news. The code of practice was created by online platforms such as Google and Facebook and the advertising industry to counter fake news online.
code of practice, disinformation, Fake news, Online platforms, Vrijheid van meningsuiting
RIS
Bibtex
Political micro-targeting: a Manchurian candidate or just a dark horse? external link
Abstract
Political micro-targeting (PMT) has become a popular topic both in academia and in the public discussions after the surprise results of the 2016 US presidential election, the UK vote on leaving the European Union, and a number of general elections in Europe in 2017. Yet, we still know little about whether PMT is a tool with such destructive potential that it requires close societal control, or if it’s “just” a new phenomenon with currently unknown capacities, but which can ultimately be incorporated into our political processes. In this article we identify the points where we think we need to further develop our analytical capacities around PMT. We argue that we need to decouple research from the US context, and through more non-US and comparative research we need to develop a better understanding of the macro, meso, and micro level factors that affect the adoption and success of PMTs across different countries. One of the most under-researched macro-level factors is law. We argue that PMT research must develop a better understanding of law, especially in Europe, where the regulatory frameworks around platforms, personal data, political and commercial speech do shape the use and effectiveness of PMT. We point out that the incorporation of such new factors calls for the sophistication of research designs, which currently rely too much on qualitative methods, and use too little of the data that exists on PMT. And finally, we call for distancing PMT research from the hype surrounding the new PMT capabilities, and the moral panics that quickly develop around its uses.
democratie, frontpage, Online platforms, Personal data, political microtargeting, Regulation
RIS
Bibtex
Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility external link
Abstract
Online platforms, from Facebook to Twitter, and from Coursera to Uber, have become deeply involved in a wide range of public activities, including journalism, civic engagement, education, and transport. As such, they have started to play a vital role in the realization of important public values and policy objectives associated with these activities. Based on insights from theories about risk sharing and the problem of many hands, this article develops a conceptual framework for the governance of the public role of platforms, and elaborates on the concept of cooperative responsibility for the realization of critical public policy objectives in Europe. It argues that the realization of public values in platform-based public activities cannot be adequately achieved by allocating responsibility to one central actor (as is currently common practice), but should be the result of dynamic interaction between platforms, users, and public institutions.
Links
civic engagement, education, frontpage, Journalism, Online platforms, public values, responsability, transport
RIS
Bibtex
Unfair Commercial Practices: A Complementary Approach to Privacy Protection external link
Abstract
Millions of European internet users access online platforms where their personal data is being collected, processed, analysed or sold. The existence of some of the largest online platforms is entirely based on data driven business models. In the European Union, the protection of personal data is considered a fundamental right. Under Article 8(3) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, compliance with data protection rules should be subject to control by an independent authority. In the EU, enforcement of privacy rules almost solely takes place by the national data protection authorities. They typically apply sector-specific rules, based on the EU Data Protection Directive. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission is the primary enforcer of consumers’ (online) privacy interests. The agency’s competence is not based on the protection of fundamental rights, but on the basis that maintenance of a competitive, fair marketplace will provide the right choices for consumers to take. In this Article the US legal framework will be discussed and compared to the EU legal framework, which forms our finding that in the EU rules on unfair commercial practices could be enforced in a similar manner to protect people’s privacy. In the EU, the many frictions concerning the market/consumer-oriented use of personal data form a good reason to actually deal with these frictions in a market/consumer legal framework.
Links
frontpage, Fundamental rights, Online platforms, Personal data, Privacy, unfair commercial practices