Trading nuance for scale? Platform observability and content governance under the DSA

Trading nuance for scale? Platform observability and content governance under the DSA external link

Internet Policy Review, vol. 14, iss. : 3, 2025

Abstract

The Digital Services Act (DSA) marks a paradigmatic shift in platform governance, introducing mechanisms like the Statement of Reasons (SoRs) database to foster transparency and observability of platforms’ content moderation practices. This study investigates the DSA Transparency Database as a regulatory mechanism for enabling observability, focusing on the automation and territorial application of content moderation across the EU/EEA. By analysing 439 million SoRs from eight Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs), we find that the vast majority of content moderation decisions are enforced automatically and uniformly across the EU/EEA. We also identify significant discrepancies in content moderation strategies across VLOPs, with TikTok, YouTube and X exhibiting the most distinct practices, which are further analysed in the paper. Our findings reveal a strong correlation between automation and the speed of content moderation, automation and the territorial scope of decisions. We also highlight several limitations of the database, notably the lack of language-specific data and inconsistencies in how SoRs are reported by VLOPs. We conclude that despite such shortcomings, the DSA and its Transparency Database may enable a wider constellation of stakeholders to participate in platform governance, paving the way for more meaningful platform observability.

Links

Content moderation, Digital Services Act (DSA), platform governance, Transparency

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Papaevangelou, C.
AU  - Votta, F.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-09-17
T1  - Trading nuance for scale? Platform observability and content governance under the DSA
JO  - Internet Policy Review
VL  - 14
IS  - 3
UR  - https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/platform-observability-and-content-governance
DO  - https://doi.org/10.14763/2025.3.2037
AB  - The Digital Services Act (DSA) marks a paradigmatic shift in platform governance, introducing mechanisms like the Statement of Reasons (SoRs) database to foster transparency and observability of platforms’ content moderation practices. This study investigates the DSA Transparency Database as a regulatory mechanism for enabling observability, focusing on the automation and territorial application of content moderation across the EU/EEA. By analysing 439 million SoRs from eight Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs), we find that the vast majority of content moderation decisions are enforced automatically and uniformly across the EU/EEA. We also identify significant discrepancies in content moderation strategies across VLOPs, with TikTok, YouTube and X exhibiting the most distinct practices, which are further analysed in the paper. Our findings reveal a strong correlation between automation and the speed of content moderation, automation and the territorial scope of decisions. We also highlight several limitations of the database, notably the lack of language-specific data and inconsistencies in how SoRs are reported by VLOPs. We conclude that despite such shortcomings, the DSA and its Transparency Database may enable a wider constellation of stakeholders to participate in platform governance, paving the way for more meaningful platform observability.
K1  - Content moderation
K1  - Digital Services Act (DSA)
K1  - platform governance
K1  - Transparency
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Trading nuance for scale? Platform observability and content governance under the DSA},
	author = {Papaevangelou, C. and Votta, F.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.14763/2025.3.2037},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-09-17},
	journal = {Internet Policy Review},
	volume = {14},
	issue = {3},
	abstract = {The Digital Services Act (DSA) marks a paradigmatic shift in platform governance, introducing mechanisms like the Statement of Reasons (SoRs) database to foster transparency and observability of platforms’ content moderation practices. This study investigates the DSA Transparency Database as a regulatory mechanism for enabling observability, focusing on the automation and territorial application of content moderation across the EU/EEA. By analysing 439 million SoRs from eight Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs), we find that the vast majority of content moderation decisions are enforced automatically and uniformly across the EU/EEA. We also identify significant discrepancies in content moderation strategies across VLOPs, with TikTok, YouTube and X exhibiting the most distinct practices, which are further analysed in the paper. Our findings reveal a strong correlation between automation and the speed of content moderation, automation and the territorial scope of decisions. We also highlight several limitations of the database, notably the lack of language-specific data and inconsistencies in how SoRs are reported by VLOPs. We conclude that despite such shortcomings, the DSA and its Transparency Database may enable a wider constellation of stakeholders to participate in platform governance, paving the way for more meaningful platform observability.},
	keywords = {Content moderation, Digital Services Act (DSA), platform governance, Transparency},
}

Save .bib

The Regulation of Disinformation Under the Digital Services Act external link

Fahy, R., Buijs, D. & van Hoboken, J.

Media and Communication, vol. 13, 2025

Abstract

This article critically examines the regulation of disinformation under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). It begins by analysing how the DSA applies to disinformation, discussing how the DSA facilitates the removal of illegal disinformation, and on the other hand, how it can protect users’ freedom of expression against the removal of certain content classified as disinformation. The article then moves to the DSA’s special risk‐based rules, which apply to Very Large Online Platforms in relation to mitigation of systemic risks relating to disinformation, and are to be enforced by the European Commission. We analyse recent regulatory action by the Commission in tackling disinformation within its DSA competencies, and assess these actions from a fundamental rights perspective, focusing on freedom of expression guaranteed under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Links

Digital Services Act (DSA), disinformation, Freedom of expression, Online platforms

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Fahy, R.
AU  - Buijs, D.
AU  - van Hoboken, J.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-05-28
T1  - The Regulation of Disinformation Under the Digital Services Act
JO  - Media and Communication
VL  - 13
UR  - https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/9615
DO  - https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.9615
AB  - This article critically examines the regulation of disinformation under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). It begins by analysing how the DSA applies to disinformation, discussing how the DSA facilitates the removal of illegal disinformation, and on the other hand, how it can protect users’ freedom of expression against the removal of certain content classified as disinformation. The article then moves to the DSA’s special risk‐based rules, which apply to Very Large Online Platforms in relation to mitigation of systemic risks relating to disinformation, and are to be enforced by the European Commission. We analyse recent regulatory action by the Commission in tackling disinformation within its DSA competencies, and assess these actions from a fundamental rights perspective, focusing on freedom of expression guaranteed under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
K1  - Digital Services Act (DSA)
K1  - disinformation
K1  - Freedom of expression
K1  - Online platforms
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {The Regulation of Disinformation Under the Digital Services Act},
	author = {Fahy, R. and Buijs, D. and van Hoboken, J.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.9615},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-05-28},
	journal = {Media and Communication},
	volume = {13},
	abstract = {This article critically examines the regulation of disinformation under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). It begins by analysing how the DSA applies to disinformation, discussing how the DSA facilitates the removal of illegal disinformation, and on the other hand, how it can protect users’ freedom of expression against the removal of certain content classified as disinformation. The article then moves to the DSA’s special risk‐based rules, which apply to Very Large Online Platforms in relation to mitigation of systemic risks relating to disinformation, and are to be enforced by the European Commission. We analyse recent regulatory action by the Commission in tackling disinformation within its DSA competencies, and assess these actions from a fundamental rights perspective, focusing on freedom of expression guaranteed under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.},
	keywords = {Digital Services Act (DSA), disinformation, Freedom of expression, Online platforms},
}

Save .bib

More Than Justifications an Analysis of Information Needs in Explanations and Motivations to Disable Personalization external link

Resendez, V., Kieslich, K., Helberger, N. & Vreese, C.H. de

Journalism Studies, vol. 26, iss. : 11, pp: 1304-1312, 2025

Abstract

There is consensus that algorithmic news recommenders should be explainable to inform news readers of potential risks. However, debates continue over which information users need and which stakeholders should access this information. As the debate continues, researchers also call for more control over algorithmic news recommender systems, for example, by turning off personalized recommendations. Despite this call, it is unclear the extent to which news readers will use this feature. To add nuance to the discussion, we analyzed 586 responses to two open-ended questions: i) what information needs to contribute to trustworthiness perceptions of new recommendations, and ii) whether people want the ability to turn off personalization. Our results indicate that most participants found knowing the sources of news items important for trusting a recommendation system. Additionally, more than half of the participants were inclined to disable personalization. The most common reasons to turn off personalization included concerns about bias or filter bubbles and a preference to consume generalized news. These findings suggest that news readers have different information needs for explanations when interacting with an algorithmic news recommender and that many news readers prefer to disable the usage of personalized news recommendations.

Links

control, Digital Services Act (DSA), news recommenders, Personalisation, trust

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Resendez, V.
AU  - Kieslich, K.
AU  - Helberger, N.
AU  - Vreese, C.H. de
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-05-14
T1  - More Than Justifications an Analysis of Information Needs in Explanations and Motivations to Disable Personalization
JO  - Journalism Studies
VL  - 26
IS  - 11
SP  - 1304-1312
UR  - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2025.2505001
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2025.2505001
AB  - There is consensus that algorithmic news recommenders should be explainable to inform news readers of potential risks. However, debates continue over which information users need and which stakeholders should access this information. As the debate continues, researchers also call for more control over algorithmic news recommender systems, for example, by turning off personalized recommendations. Despite this call, it is unclear the extent to which news readers will use this feature. To add nuance to the discussion, we analyzed 586 responses to two open-ended questions: i) what information needs to contribute to trustworthiness perceptions of new recommendations, and ii) whether people want the ability to turn off personalization. Our results indicate that most participants found knowing the sources of news items important for trusting a recommendation system. Additionally, more than half of the participants were inclined to disable personalization. The most common reasons to turn off personalization included concerns about bias or filter bubbles and a preference to consume generalized news. These findings suggest that news readers have different information needs for explanations when interacting with an algorithmic news recommender and that many news readers prefer to disable the usage of personalized news recommendations.
K1  - control
K1  - Digital Services Act (DSA)
K1  - news recommenders
K1  - Personalisation
K1  - trust
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {More Than Justifications an Analysis of Information Needs in Explanations and Motivations to Disable Personalization},
	author = {Resendez, V. and Kieslich, K. and Helberger, N. and Vreese, C.H. de},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2025.2505001},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-05-14},
	journal = {Journalism Studies},
	volume = {26},
	issue = {11},
	pages = {1304-1312},
	abstract = {There is consensus that algorithmic news recommenders should be explainable to inform news readers of potential risks. However, debates continue over which information users need and which stakeholders should access this information. As the debate continues, researchers also call for more control over algorithmic news recommender systems, for example, by turning off personalized recommendations. Despite this call, it is unclear the extent to which news readers will use this feature. To add nuance to the discussion, we analyzed 586 responses to two open-ended questions: i) what information needs to contribute to trustworthiness perceptions of new recommendations, and ii) whether people want the ability to turn off personalization. Our results indicate that most participants found knowing the sources of news items important for trusting a recommendation system. Additionally, more than half of the participants were inclined to disable personalization. The most common reasons to turn off personalization included concerns about bias or filter bubbles and a preference to consume generalized news. These findings suggest that news readers have different information needs for explanations when interacting with an algorithmic news recommender and that many news readers prefer to disable the usage of personalized news recommendations.},
	keywords = {control, Digital Services Act (DSA), news recommenders, Personalisation, trust},
}

Save .bib

Online Behavioural Advertising, Consumer Empowerment and Fair Competition: Are the DSA Transparency Obligations the Right Answer? download

Izyumenko, E., Senftleben, M., Schutte, N., Smit, E.G., Noort, G. van & Velzen, L. van

Journal of European Consumer and Market Law (EuCML), vol. 14, iss. : 2, pp: 46-59, 2025

Links

Online Behavioural Advertising Consumer Empowerment

Competition law, Consumer law, Digital Services Act (DSA), online behavioural advertising, Transparency

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Generative AI, Copyright and the AI Act external link

Quintais, J.

Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 56, num: 106107, 2025

Abstract

This paper provides a critical analysis of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act's implications for the European Union (EU) copyright acquis, aiming to clarify the complex relationship between AI regulation and copyright law while identifying areas of legal ambiguity and gaps that may influence future policymaking. The discussion begins with an overview of fundamental copyright concerns related to generative AI, focusing on issues that arise during the input, model, and output stages, and how these concerns intersect with the text and data mining (TDM) exceptions under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD). The paper then explores the AI Act's structure and key definitions relevant to copyright law. The core analysis addresses the AI Act's impact on copyright, including the role of TDM in AI model training, the copyright obligations imposed by the Act, requirements for respecting copyright law—particularly TDM opt-outs—and the extraterritorial implications of these provisions. It also examines transparency obligations, compliance mechanisms, and the enforcement framework. The paper further critiques the current regime's inadequacies, particularly concerning the fair remuneration of creators, and evaluates potential improvements such as collective licensing and bargaining. It also assesses legislative reform proposals, such as statutory licensing and AI output levies, and concludes with reflections on future directions for integrating AI governance with copyright protection.

Links

AI Act, Content moderation, Copyright, Digital Services Act (DSA), Generative AI, Text and Data Mining (TDM), Transparency

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Quintais, J.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-01-30
T1  - Generative AI, Copyright and the AI Act
JO  - Computer Law & Security Review
VL  - 56
NV  - 106107
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4912701
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106107
AB  - This paper provides a critical analysis of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act\'s implications for the European Union (EU) copyright acquis, aiming to clarify the complex relationship between AI regulation and copyright law while identifying areas of legal ambiguity and gaps that may influence future policymaking. The discussion begins with an overview of fundamental copyright concerns related to generative AI, focusing on issues that arise during the input, model, and output stages, and how these concerns intersect with the text and data mining (TDM) exceptions under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD).
The paper then explores the AI Act\'s structure and key definitions relevant to copyright law. The core analysis addresses the AI Act\'s impact on copyright, including the role of TDM in AI model training, the copyright obligations imposed by the Act, requirements for respecting copyright law—particularly TDM opt-outs—and the extraterritorial implications of these provisions. It also examines transparency obligations, compliance mechanisms, and the enforcement framework. The paper further critiques the current regime\'s inadequacies, particularly concerning the fair remuneration of creators, and evaluates potential improvements such as collective licensing and bargaining. It also assesses legislative reform proposals, such as statutory licensing and AI output levies, and concludes with reflections on future directions for integrating AI governance with copyright protection.
K1  - AI Act
K1  - Content moderation
K1  - Copyright
K1  - Digital Services Act (DSA)
K1  - Generative AI
K1  - Text and Data Mining (TDM)
K1  - Transparency
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Generative AI, Copyright and the AI Act},
	author = {Quintais, J.},
	url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364925000020},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106107},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-01-30},
	journal = {Computer Law & Security Review},
	volume = {56},
	number = {106107},
	abstract = {This paper provides a critical analysis of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act\'s implications for the European Union (EU) copyright acquis, aiming to clarify the complex relationship between AI regulation and copyright law while identifying areas of legal ambiguity and gaps that may influence future policymaking. The discussion begins with an overview of fundamental copyright concerns related to generative AI, focusing on issues that arise during the input, model, and output stages, and how these concerns intersect with the text and data mining (TDM) exceptions under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD).
The paper then explores the AI Act\'s structure and key definitions relevant to copyright law. The core analysis addresses the AI Act\'s impact on copyright, including the role of TDM in AI model training, the copyright obligations imposed by the Act, requirements for respecting copyright law—particularly TDM opt-outs—and the extraterritorial implications of these provisions. It also examines transparency obligations, compliance mechanisms, and the enforcement framework. The paper further critiques the current regime\'s inadequacies, particularly concerning the fair remuneration of creators, and evaluates potential improvements such as collective licensing and bargaining. It also assesses legislative reform proposals, such as statutory licensing and AI output levies, and concludes with reflections on future directions for integrating AI governance with copyright protection.},
	keywords = {AI Act, Content moderation, Copyright, Digital Services Act (DSA), Generative AI, Text and Data Mining (TDM), Transparency},
}

Save .bib

“Must-carry”, Special Treatment and Freedom of Expression on Online Platforms: A European Story

Kuczerawy, A. & Quintais, J.

2024

Abstract

This paper examines the role of "must-carry" obligations in the regulation of online platforms, arguing that these obligations are better understood as special treatment rules rather than direct analogues of traditional broadcasting regulation. By analysing the development of such rules within the European Union, particularly through the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), the paper explores how these provisions aim to safeguard freedom of expression, ensure access to trustworthy information, enhance media pluralism, and regulate platform behaviour. The analysis extends to national-level laws and court decisions in Germany, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Poland, illustrating how these countries have grappled with similar challenges in applying and contextualizing special treatment rules. Through a detailed examination of these frameworks, the paper critiques the risks of these rules, including their potential to entrench power imbalances, amplify state narratives, and complicate efforts to counter disinformation. Additionally, the paper highlights the broader implications of granting privileged status to legacy media and political actors, questioning whether such measures align with democratic principles and the rule of law. Ultimately, the paper argues that while these rules may offer a response to platform dominance, their implementation risks undermining the equality of speech and shifting the focus of freedom of expression toward a privilege for select groups. The paper is currently under peer review so please contact the authors for a copy of the preprint. We'll upload it again once the review is complete.

Content moderation, Digital Services Act (DSA), EU law, European Media Freedom Act, must carry, platform regulation

RIS

TY  - BLOG
AU  - Kuczerawy, A.
AU  - Quintais, J.
PY  - 2024
DA  - 2024-12-19
T1  - “Must-carry”, Special Treatment and Freedom of Expression on Online Platforms: A European Story
AB  - This paper examines the role of \"must-carry\" obligations in the regulation of online platforms, arguing that these obligations are better understood as special treatment rules rather than direct analogues of traditional broadcasting regulation. By analysing the development of such rules within the European Union, particularly through the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), the paper explores how these provisions aim to safeguard freedom of expression, ensure access to trustworthy information, enhance media pluralism, and regulate platform behaviour. The analysis extends to national-level laws and court decisions in Germany, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Poland, illustrating how these countries have grappled with similar challenges in applying and contextualizing special treatment rules. Through a detailed examination of these frameworks, the paper critiques the risks of these rules, including their potential to entrench power imbalances, amplify state narratives, and complicate efforts to counter disinformation. Additionally, the paper highlights the broader implications of granting privileged status to legacy media and political actors, questioning whether such measures align with democratic principles and the rule of law. Ultimately, the paper argues that while these rules may offer a response to platform dominance, their implementation risks undermining the equality of speech and shifting the focus of freedom of expression toward a privilege for select groups.

The paper is currently under peer review so please contact the authors for a copy of the preprint. We\'ll upload it again once the review is complete.
K1  - Content moderation
K1  - Digital Services Act (DSA)
K1  - EU law
K1  - European Media Freedom Act
K1  - must carry
K1  - platform regulation
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Online publication{nokey,
	title = {“Must-carry”, Special Treatment and Freedom of Expression on Online Platforms: A European Story},
	author = {Kuczerawy, A. and Quintais, J.},
	year = {2024},
	date = {2024-12-19},
	abstract = {This paper examines the role of \"must-carry\" obligations in the regulation of online platforms, arguing that these obligations are better understood as special treatment rules rather than direct analogues of traditional broadcasting regulation. By analysing the development of such rules within the European Union, particularly through the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), the paper explores how these provisions aim to safeguard freedom of expression, ensure access to trustworthy information, enhance media pluralism, and regulate platform behaviour. The analysis extends to national-level laws and court decisions in Germany, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Poland, illustrating how these countries have grappled with similar challenges in applying and contextualizing special treatment rules. Through a detailed examination of these frameworks, the paper critiques the risks of these rules, including their potential to entrench power imbalances, amplify state narratives, and complicate efforts to counter disinformation. Additionally, the paper highlights the broader implications of granting privileged status to legacy media and political actors, questioning whether such measures align with democratic principles and the rule of law. Ultimately, the paper argues that while these rules may offer a response to platform dominance, their implementation risks undermining the equality of speech and shifting the focus of freedom of expression toward a privilege for select groups.

The paper is currently under peer review so please contact the authors for a copy of the preprint. We\'ll upload it again once the review is complete.},
	keywords = {Content moderation, Digital Services Act (DSA), EU law, European Media Freedom Act, must carry, platform regulation},
}

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
UR  - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2363926
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},
	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
UR  - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-023-01409-5
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.},
	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