Regulation - IVIR

Private Enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA)

Leerssen, P., van Duin, A. & van Hoboken, J.

European Review of Private Law, vol. 34, iss. : 2/3, pp: 229-258,

Abstract

The Digital Services Act (DSA) represents a significant shift in EU digital regulation, aiming to create a safe, predictable, and trustworthy online environment whilst protecting fundamental rights. While public oversight and co-regulation by the European Commission and national Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs) have already attracted significant attention, this paper considers the underappreciated role of private litigation in enforcing the DSA. It examines a spectrum of DSA provisions – Articles 14, 25 and 35 – that could play a key role in the private enforcement of platform obligations and user rights. We situate these provisions within broader European private law debates, connecting them to principles of procedural autonomy, the effectiveness of EU law, and established doctrines of tort and contract liability. By analysing different DSA obligations across a range of topics, from content moderation to systemic risk management, we aim to identify potential pathways, as well as obstacles, for tech accountability through European courts.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2026036

Digital Services Act (DSA), enforcement, Regulation

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Leerssen, P.
AU  - van Duin, A.
AU  - van Hoboken, J.
PY  - 
DA  - DATE ERROR: pub_date = 
T1  - Private Enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA)
JO  - European Review of Private Law
VL  - 34
IS  - 2/3
SP  - 229-258
DO  - https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2026036
AB  - The Digital Services Act (DSA) represents a significant shift in EU digital regulation, aiming to create a safe, predictable, and trustworthy online environment whilst protecting fundamental rights. While public oversight and co-regulation by the European Commission and national Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs) have already attracted significant attention, this paper considers the underappreciated role of private litigation in enforcing the DSA. It examines a spectrum of DSA provisions – Articles 14, 25 and 35 – that could play a key role in the private enforcement of platform obligations and user rights. We situate these provisions within broader European private law debates, connecting them to principles of procedural autonomy, the effectiveness of EU law, and established doctrines of tort and contract liability. By analysing different DSA obligations across a range of topics, from content moderation to systemic risk management, we aim to identify potential pathways, as well as obstacles, for tech accountability through European courts.
K1  - Digital Services Act (DSA)
K1  - enforcement
K1  - Regulation
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Private Enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA)},
	author = {Leerssen, P. and van Duin, A. and van Hoboken, J.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.54648/erpl2026036},
	year = {},
	date = {DATE ERROR: pub_date = },
	journal = {European Review of Private Law},
	volume = {34},
	issue = {2/3},
	pages = {229-258},
	abstract = {The Digital Services Act (DSA) represents a significant shift in EU digital regulation, aiming to create a safe, predictable, and trustworthy online environment whilst protecting fundamental rights. While public oversight and co-regulation by the European Commission and national Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs) have already attracted significant attention, this paper considers the underappreciated role of private litigation in enforcing the DSA. It examines a spectrum of DSA provisions – Articles 14, 25 and 35 – that could play a key role in the private enforcement of platform obligations and user rights. We situate these provisions within broader European private law debates, connecting them to principles of procedural autonomy, the effectiveness of EU law, and established doctrines of tort and contract liability. By analysing different DSA obligations across a range of topics, from content moderation to systemic risk management, we aim to identify potential pathways, as well as obstacles, for tech accountability through European courts.},
	keywords = {Digital Services Act (DSA), enforcement, Regulation},
}

Save .bib

Fundamental Rights Aspects of EU Media Regulation: Not Just an Act

McGonagle, T.

In: The Cambridge Handbook of Media Law and Policy in Europe, Cambridge University Press , 2026, pp: 21-60, ISBN: 9781009568159

Abstract

This chapter traces how contemporary media pass through different regulatory zones and examines the different rules that govern each zone and how the zones relate to each other. It briefly charts the recent and ongoing evolution of the media, from analogue roots to generative AI futures, and notes the fundamental rights and regulatory ramifications of technology-driven innovations. It draws an analytical line from these conceptualisations through to the contemporary threats to media freedom that regulation urgently needs to address.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009568159.004

Fundamental rights, Media law, Regulation

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Evaluation Report D2.4: Critical legal analysis of the application of European election disinformation regulation to community-governed platforms external link

Fahy, R., Trogrlić, G. & van Hoboken, J.

2025

Abstract

The latest deliverable of the DEM-Debate project authored by the University of Amsterdam explores how the new EU legal framework on election disinformation applies to Wikipedia. The legal analysis evaluates, through critical lenses, the impact of the new rules on the functioning of community-governed platforms in addressing disinformation related to the 2024 European Parliament elections, drawing some preliminary conclusions on how to inform policy making: Wikipedia editorial rules together with its patrolling system are good examples from which future legislation on election disinformation can draw inspiration. The report starts by accounting for the latest developments in the application of the EU disinformation legal framework, including two rulings of the European Court of Human Rights and the stance adopted by the American administration and legislative bodies towards the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). Then, it details the findings of the critical analysis of the EU legal framework.

Links

https://wikimedia.brussels/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/D2.4-Critical-Legal-Analysis.pdf

disinformation, elections, Online platforms, Regulation

RIS

TY  - RPRT
AU  - Fahy, R.
AU  - Trogrlić, G.
AU  - van Hoboken, J.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-10-31
T1  - Evaluation Report D2.4: Critical legal analysis of the application of European election disinformation regulation to community-governed platforms
AB  - The latest deliverable of the DEM-Debate project authored by the University of Amsterdam explores how the new EU legal framework on election disinformation applies to Wikipedia. The legal analysis evaluates, through critical lenses, the impact of the new rules on the functioning of community-governed platforms in addressing disinformation related to the 2024 European Parliament elections, drawing some preliminary conclusions on how to inform policy making: Wikipedia editorial rules together with its patrolling system are good examples from which future legislation on election disinformation can draw inspiration.

The report starts by accounting for the latest developments in the application of the EU disinformation legal framework, including two rulings of the European Court of Human Rights and the stance adopted by the American administration and legislative bodies towards the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). Then, it details the findings of the critical analysis of the EU legal framework.
K1  - disinformation
K1  - elections
K1  - Online platforms
K1  - Regulation
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Report{nokey,
	title = {Evaluation Report D2.4: Critical legal analysis of the application of European election disinformation regulation to community-governed platforms},
	author = {Fahy, R. and Trogrlić, G. and van Hoboken, J.},
	url = {https://wikimedia.brussels/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/D2.4-Critical-Legal-Analysis.pdf},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-10-31},
	abstract = {The latest deliverable of the DEM-Debate project authored by the University of Amsterdam explores how the new EU legal framework on election disinformation applies to Wikipedia. The legal analysis evaluates, through critical lenses, the impact of the new rules on the functioning of community-governed platforms in addressing disinformation related to the 2024 European Parliament elections, drawing some preliminary conclusions on how to inform policy making: Wikipedia editorial rules together with its patrolling system are good examples from which future legislation on election disinformation can draw inspiration.

The report starts by accounting for the latest developments in the application of the EU disinformation legal framework, including two rulings of the European Court of Human Rights and the stance adopted by the American administration and legislative bodies towards the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). Then, it details the findings of the critical analysis of the EU legal framework.},
	keywords = {disinformation, elections, Online platforms, Regulation},
}

Save .bib

Trust in context: The impact of regulation on blockchain and DeFi external link

Bodó, B. & Filippi, P. de

Regulation & Governance, vol. 19, num: 3, pp: 740-760, 2025

Abstract

Trust is a key resource in financial transactions. Traditional financial institutions, and novel blockchain-based decentralized financial (DeFi) services rely on fundamentally different sources of trust and confidence. The former relies on heavy regulation, trusted intermediaries, clear rules (and restrictions) on market competition, and long-standing informal expectations on what banks and other financial intermediaries are supposed to do or not to do. The latter rely on blockchain technology to provide confidence in the outcome of rules encoded in protocols and smart contracts. Their main promise is to create confidence in the way the blockchain architecture enforces rules, rather than to trust banks, regulators, and markets. In this article, we compare the trust architectures surrounding these two financial systems. We provide a deeper analysis of how proposed regulation in the blockchain space affects the code- and confidence-based architectures which so far have underwrote DeFi. We argue that despite the solid safeguards and guarantees which code can offer, the confidence in DeFi is still very much dependent on more traditional trust-enhancing mechanisms, such as code governance, and antifraud regulation to address some of the issues which currently plague this domain, and which have no immediate, purely software-based solutions. What is more, given the risks of bugs or scams in the DeFi space, regulation and trusted intermediaries may need to play a more active role, in order for DeFi to gain the trust of the next generation of users.

Links

blockchain, Regulation, trust

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Bodó, B.
AU  - Filippi, P. de
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-07-17
T1  - Trust in context: The impact of regulation on blockchain and DeFi
JO  - Regulation & Governance
VL  - 19
NV  - 3
SP  - 740-760
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12637
AB  - Trust is a key resource in financial transactions. Traditional financial institutions, and novel blockchain-based decentralized financial (DeFi) services rely on fundamentally different sources of trust and confidence. The former relies on heavy regulation, trusted intermediaries, clear rules (and restrictions) on market competition, and long-standing informal expectations on what banks and other financial intermediaries are supposed to do or not to do. The latter rely on blockchain technology to provide confidence in the outcome of rules encoded in protocols and smart contracts. Their main promise is to create confidence in the way the blockchain architecture enforces rules, rather than to trust banks, regulators, and markets. In this article, we compare the trust architectures surrounding these two financial systems. We provide a deeper analysis of how proposed regulation in the blockchain space affects the code- and confidence-based architectures which so far have underwrote DeFi. We argue that despite the solid safeguards and guarantees which code can offer, the confidence in DeFi is still very much dependent on more traditional trust-enhancing mechanisms, such as code governance, and antifraud regulation to address some of the issues which currently plague this domain, and which have no immediate, purely software-based solutions. What is more, given the risks of bugs or scams in the DeFi space, regulation and trusted intermediaries may need to play a more active role, in order for DeFi to gain the trust of the next generation of users.
K1  - blockchain
K1  - Regulation
K1  - trust
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Trust in context: The impact of regulation on blockchain and DeFi},
	author = {Bodó, B. and Filippi, P. de},
	url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/rego.12637},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12637},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-07-17},
	journal = {Regulation & Governance},
	volume = {19},
	number = {3},
	pages = {740-760},
	abstract = {Trust is a key resource in financial transactions. Traditional financial institutions, and novel blockchain-based decentralized financial (DeFi) services rely on fundamentally different sources of trust and confidence. The former relies on heavy regulation, trusted intermediaries, clear rules (and restrictions) on market competition, and long-standing informal expectations on what banks and other financial intermediaries are supposed to do or not to do. The latter rely on blockchain technology to provide confidence in the outcome of rules encoded in protocols and smart contracts. Their main promise is to create confidence in the way the blockchain architecture enforces rules, rather than to trust banks, regulators, and markets. In this article, we compare the trust architectures surrounding these two financial systems. We provide a deeper analysis of how proposed regulation in the blockchain space affects the code- and confidence-based architectures which so far have underwrote DeFi. We argue that despite the solid safeguards and guarantees which code can offer, the confidence in DeFi is still very much dependent on more traditional trust-enhancing mechanisms, such as code governance, and antifraud regulation to address some of the issues which currently plague this domain, and which have no immediate, purely software-based solutions. What is more, given the risks of bugs or scams in the DeFi space, regulation and trusted intermediaries may need to play a more active role, in order for DeFi to gain the trust of the next generation of users.},
	keywords = {blockchain, Regulation, trust},
}

Save .bib

Between the cracks: Blind spots in regulating media concentration and platform dependence in the EU external link

Seipp, T., Helberger, N., Vreese, C.H. de & Ausloos, J.

Internet Policy Review, vol. 13, iss. : 4, 2024

Abstract

Alongside the recent regulations addressing platforms and digital markets – the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) – the European Union’s (EU) European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) aims to safeguard media freedom and pluralism, two essential pillars of democracy. The EMFA introduces several provisions, including rules specifically focused on assessing media concentration in "the online environment". While these initiatives are commendable, there are noticeable blind spots in how EU regulations tackle the issues of dependence on, and the power of, platforms amidst the rising trend of media concentration. An essential aspect that needs attention is the technological power of these platforms, underpinned by their economic and political power. We find that neither the infrastructural power of platforms – transforming them from “gatekeepers” to “digital infrastructure and AI providers” – nor their relational power – creating imbalances and dependencies while posing sustainability challenges for (local) journalism – are effectively addressed in the current EU regulatory frameworks, despite both forms of power driving digital media concentration. The article then concludes with recommendations for a way forward capable of preserving values such as media pluralism and editorial independence.

Links

EU, media concentration, Media law, Platforms, Regulation

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Seipp, T.
AU  - Helberger, N.
AU  - Vreese, C.H. de
AU  - Ausloos, J.
PY  - 2024
DA  - 2024-11-14
T1  - Between the cracks: Blind spots in regulating media concentration and platform dependence in the EU
JO  - Internet Policy Review
VL  - 13
IS  - 4
DO  - https://doi.org/10.14763/2024.4.1813 
AB  - Alongside the recent regulations addressing platforms and digital markets – the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) – the European Union’s (EU) European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) aims to safeguard media freedom and pluralism, two essential pillars of democracy. The EMFA introduces several provisions, including rules specifically focused on assessing media concentration in \"the online environment\". While these initiatives are commendable, there are noticeable blind spots in how EU regulations tackle the issues of dependence on, and the power of, platforms amidst the rising trend of media concentration. An essential aspect that needs attention is the technological power of these platforms, underpinned by their economic and political power. We find that neither the infrastructural power of platforms – transforming them from “gatekeepers” to “digital infrastructure and AI providers” – nor their relational power – creating imbalances and dependencies while posing sustainability challenges for (local) journalism – are effectively addressed in the current EU regulatory frameworks, despite both forms of power driving digital media concentration. The article then concludes with recommendations for a way forward capable of preserving values such as media pluralism and editorial independence.
K1  - EU
K1  - media concentration
K1  - Media law
K1  - Platforms
K1  - Regulation
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Between the cracks: Blind spots in regulating media concentration and platform dependence in the EU},
	author = {Seipp, T. and Helberger, N. and Vreese, C.H. de and Ausloos, J.},
	url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/regulating-media-concentration-and-platform-dependence},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.14763/2024.4.1813 },
	year = {2024},
	date = {2024-11-14},
	journal = {Internet Policy Review},
	volume = {13},
	issue = {4},
	abstract = {Alongside the recent regulations addressing platforms and digital markets – the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) – the European Union’s (EU) European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) aims to safeguard media freedom and pluralism, two essential pillars of democracy. The EMFA introduces several provisions, including rules specifically focused on assessing media concentration in \"the online environment\". While these initiatives are commendable, there are noticeable blind spots in how EU regulations tackle the issues of dependence on, and the power of, platforms amidst the rising trend of media concentration. An essential aspect that needs attention is the technological power of these platforms, underpinned by their economic and political power. We find that neither the infrastructural power of platforms – transforming them from “gatekeepers” to “digital infrastructure and AI providers” – nor their relational power – creating imbalances and dependencies while posing sustainability challenges for (local) journalism – are effectively addressed in the current EU regulatory frameworks, despite both forms of power driving digital media concentration. The article then concludes with recommendations for a way forward capable of preserving values such as media pluralism and editorial independence.},
	keywords = {EU, media concentration, Media law, Platforms, Regulation},
}

Save .bib

Beyond financial regulation of crypto-asset wallet software: In search of secondary liability external link

Barbereau, T. & Bodó, B.

Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 49, num: 105829, 2023

Abstract

Since Bitcoin, the blockchain space considerably evolved. One crucial piece of software to interact with blockchains and hold private-public key pairs to distinct crypto-assets and securities are wallets. Wallet software can be offered by liable third-parties (‘custodians’) who hold certain rights over assets and transactions. As parties subject to financial regulation, they are to uphold Anti-money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorist (AML/CFT) standards by undertaking Know-Your-Customer (KYC) checks on users of their services. In juxtaposition, wallet software can also be issued without the involvement of a liable third-party. As no KYC is performed and users have full ‘freedom to act’, such ‘non-custodial’ wallet software is popular in criminal undertakings. They are required to interact with peer-to-peer applications and organisations running on blockchains whose benefits are not the subject of this paper. To date, financial regulation fails to adequately address such wallet software because it presumes the existence of a registered, liable entity offering said software. As illustrated in the case of Tornado Cash, financial regulation fails to trace chains of secondary liability. Alas, the considered solution is a systematic surveillance of all transactions. Against this backdrop, this paper sets forth an alternative approach rooted in copyright law. Concepts that pertain to secondary liability prove of value to develop a flexible, principles-based approach to the regulation of non-custodial wallet software that accounts for both, infringing and non-infringing uses.

Links

blockchain, Crypto-assets, decentralised finance, non-custodial wallet, Regulation, secondary liability

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Barbereau, T.
AU  - Bodó, B.
PY  - 2023
DA  - 2023-06-22
T1  - Beyond financial regulation of crypto-asset wallet software: In search of secondary liability
JO  - Computer Law & Security Review
VL  - 49
NV  - 105829
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105829
AB  - Since Bitcoin, the blockchain space considerably evolved. One crucial piece of software to interact with blockchains and hold private-public key pairs to distinct crypto-assets and securities are wallets. Wallet software can be offered by liable third-parties (‘custodians’) who hold certain rights over assets and transactions. As parties subject to financial regulation, they are to uphold Anti-money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorist (AML/CFT) standards by undertaking Know-Your-Customer (KYC) checks on users of their services.
In juxtaposition, wallet software can also be issued without the involvement of a liable third-party. As no KYC is performed and users have full ‘freedom to act’, such ‘non-custodial’ wallet software is popular in criminal undertakings. They are required to interact with peer-to-peer applications and organisations running on blockchains whose benefits are not the subject of this paper. To date, financial regulation fails to adequately address such wallet software because it presumes the existence of a registered, liable entity offering said software. As illustrated in the case of Tornado Cash, financial regulation fails to trace chains of secondary liability. Alas, the considered solution is a systematic surveillance of all transactions.
Against this backdrop, this paper sets forth an alternative approach rooted in copyright law. Concepts that pertain to secondary liability prove of value to develop a flexible, principles-based approach to the regulation of non-custodial wallet software that accounts for both, infringing and non-infringing uses.
K1  - blockchain
K1  - Crypto-assets
K1  - decentralised finance
K1  - non-custodial wallet
K1  - Regulation
K1  - secondary liability
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Beyond financial regulation of crypto-asset wallet software: In search of secondary liability},
	author = {Barbereau, T. and Bodó, B.},
	url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364923000390},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105829},
	year = {2023},
	date = {2023-06-22},
	journal = {Computer Law & Security Review},
	volume = {49},
	number = {105829},
	abstract = {Since Bitcoin, the blockchain space considerably evolved. One crucial piece of software to interact with blockchains and hold private-public key pairs to distinct crypto-assets and securities are wallets. Wallet software can be offered by liable third-parties (‘custodians’) who hold certain rights over assets and transactions. As parties subject to financial regulation, they are to uphold Anti-money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorist (AML/CFT) standards by undertaking Know-Your-Customer (KYC) checks on users of their services.
In juxtaposition, wallet software can also be issued without the involvement of a liable third-party. As no KYC is performed and users have full ‘freedom to act’, such ‘non-custodial’ wallet software is popular in criminal undertakings. They are required to interact with peer-to-peer applications and organisations running on blockchains whose benefits are not the subject of this paper. To date, financial regulation fails to adequately address such wallet software because it presumes the existence of a registered, liable entity offering said software. As illustrated in the case of Tornado Cash, financial regulation fails to trace chains of secondary liability. Alas, the considered solution is a systematic surveillance of all transactions.
Against this backdrop, this paper sets forth an alternative approach rooted in copyright law. Concepts that pertain to secondary liability prove of value to develop a flexible, principles-based approach to the regulation of non-custodial wallet software that accounts for both, infringing and non-infringing uses.},
	keywords = {blockchain, Crypto-assets, decentralised finance, non-custodial wallet, Regulation, secondary liability},
}

Save .bib

Export control of cybersurveillance items in the new dual-use regulation: The challenges of applying human rights logic to export control external link

van Daalen, O., van Hoboken, J. & Rucz, M.

Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 48, 2023

Abstract

In 2021, the Recast Dual-Use Regulation entered into force. The regulation includes a heavily debated new provision on the export control of so-called cybersurveillance items. This provision departs from the traditional logic of export control rules in multiple ways. Most importantly, it positions human rights considerations as an important factor in the export control of a flexible range of technologies. This article explores the operation, implications and challenges of this new human rights-orientated approach to export control of digital surveillance technologies. Taking the definition of cybersurveillance items as a starting point of the analysis, the article draws on surveillance-related case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, to define the potential scope of application of the open-ended cybersurveillance concept of the Regulation. By exploring how this concept maps to technologies often connected with human rights infringements, such as facial recognition, location tracking and open-source intelligence, the article highlights the challenges of applying this new approach and underscores the need for its further development in practice.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105789

cybersurveillance, Human rights, Regulation

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - van Daalen, O.
AU  - van Hoboken, J.
AU  - Rucz, M.
PY  - 2023
DA  - 2023-04-21
T1  - Export control of cybersurveillance items in the new dual-use regulation: The challenges of applying human rights logic to export control
JO  - Computer Law & Security Review
VL  - 48
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105789
AB  - In 2021, the Recast Dual-Use Regulation entered into force. The regulation includes a heavily debated new provision on the export control of so-called cybersurveillance items. This provision departs from the traditional logic of export control rules in multiple ways. Most importantly, it positions human rights considerations as an important factor in the export control of a flexible range of technologies. This article explores the operation, implications and challenges of this new human rights-orientated approach to export control of digital surveillance technologies. Taking the definition of cybersurveillance items as a starting point of the analysis, the article draws on surveillance-related case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, to define the potential scope of application of the open-ended cybersurveillance concept of the Regulation. By exploring how this concept maps to technologies often connected with human rights infringements, such as facial recognition, location tracking and open-source intelligence, the article highlights the challenges of applying this new approach and underscores the need for its further development in practice.
K1  - cybersurveillance
K1  - Human rights
K1  - Regulation
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Export control of cybersurveillance items in the new dual-use regulation: The challenges of applying human rights logic to export control},
	author = {van Daalen, O. and van Hoboken, J. and Rucz, M.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105789},
	year = {2023},
	date = {2023-04-21},
	journal = {Computer Law & Security Review},
	volume = {48},
	abstract = {In 2021, the Recast Dual-Use Regulation entered into force. The regulation includes a heavily debated new provision on the export control of so-called cybersurveillance items. This provision departs from the traditional logic of export control rules in multiple ways. Most importantly, it positions human rights considerations as an important factor in the export control of a flexible range of technologies. This article explores the operation, implications and challenges of this new human rights-orientated approach to export control of digital surveillance technologies. Taking the definition of cybersurveillance items as a starting point of the analysis, the article draws on surveillance-related case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, to define the potential scope of application of the open-ended cybersurveillance concept of the Regulation. By exploring how this concept maps to technologies often connected with human rights infringements, such as facial recognition, location tracking and open-source intelligence, the article highlights the challenges of applying this new approach and underscores the need for its further development in practice.},
	keywords = {cybersurveillance, Human rights, Regulation},
}

Save .bib

Towards a Normative Perspective on Journalistic
AI: Embracing the Messy Reality of Normative
Ideals download

Helberger, N., Drunen, M. van, Möller, J., Vrijenhoek, S. & Eskens, S.

Digital Journalism, vol. 10, iss. : 10, pp: 1605-1626, 2022

Abstract

Few would disagree that AI systems and applications need to be “responsible,” but what is “responsible” and how to answer that question? Answering that question requires a normative perspective on the role of journalistic AI and the values it shall serve. Such a perspective needs to be grounded in a broader normative framework and a thorough understanding of the dynamics and complexities of journalistic AI at the level of people, newsrooms and media markets. This special issue aims to develop such a normative perspective on the use of AI-driven tools in journalism and the role of digital journalism studies in advancing that perspective. The contributions in this special issue combine conceptual, organisational and empirical angles to study the challenges involved in actively using AI to promote editorial values, the powers at play, the role of economic and regulatory conditions, and ways of bridging academic ideals and the messy reality of the real world. This editorial brings the different contributions into conversation, situates them in the broader digital journalism studies scholarship and identifies seven key-take aways.

Links

Artificial intelligence, governance, Journalism, Media law, normative perspective, professional values, Regulation

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Helberger, N.
AU  - Drunen, M. van
AU  - Möller, J.
AU  - Vrijenhoek, S.
AU  - Eskens, S.
PY  - 2022
DA  - 2022-12-22
T1  - Towards a Normative Perspective on JournalisticAI: Embracing the Messy Reality of NormativeIdeals
JO  - Digital Journalism
VL  - 10
IS  - 10
SP  - 1605-1626
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2152195
AB  - Few would disagree that AI systems and applications need to be “responsible,” but what is “responsible” and how to answer that question? Answering that question requires a normative perspective on the role of journalistic AI and the values it shall serve. Such a perspective needs to be grounded in a broader normative framework and a thorough understanding of the dynamics and complexities of journalistic AI at the level of people, newsrooms and media markets. This special issue aims to develop such a normative perspective on the use of AI-driven tools in journalism and the role of digital journalism studies in advancing that perspective. The contributions in this special issue combine conceptual, organisational and empirical angles to study the challenges involved in actively using AI to promote editorial values, the powers at play, the role of economic and regulatory conditions, and ways of bridging academic ideals and the messy reality of the real world. This editorial brings the different contributions into conversation, situates them in the broader digital journalism studies scholarship and identifies seven key-take aways.
K1  - Artificial intelligence
K1  - governance
K1  - Journalism
K1  - Media law
K1  - normative perspective
K1  - professional values
K1  - Regulation
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Towards a Normative Perspective on JournalisticAI: Embracing the Messy Reality of NormativeIdeals},
	author = {Helberger, N. and Drunen, M. van and Möller, J. and Vrijenhoek, S. and Eskens, S.},
	url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/publications/towards-a-normative-perspective-on-journalisticai-embracing-the-messy-reality-of-normativeideals/digital_journalism_2022_10/},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2152195},
	year = {2022},
	date = {2022-12-22},
	journal = {Digital Journalism},
	volume = {10},
	issue = {10},
	pages = {1605-1626},
	abstract = {Few would disagree that AI systems and applications need to be “responsible,” but what is “responsible” and how to answer that question? Answering that question requires a normative perspective on the role of journalistic AI and the values it shall serve. Such a perspective needs to be grounded in a broader normative framework and a thorough understanding of the dynamics and complexities of journalistic AI at the level of people, newsrooms and media markets. This special issue aims to develop such a normative perspective on the use of AI-driven tools in journalism and the role of digital journalism studies in advancing that perspective. The contributions in this special issue combine conceptual, organisational and empirical angles to study the challenges involved in actively using AI to promote editorial values, the powers at play, the role of economic and regulatory conditions, and ways of bridging academic ideals and the messy reality of the real world. This editorial brings the different contributions into conversation, situates them in the broader digital journalism studies scholarship and identifies seven key-take aways.},
	keywords = {Artificial intelligence, governance, Journalism, Media law, normative perspective, professional values, Regulation},
}

Save .bib

The Political Power of Platforms: How Current Attempts to Regulate Misinformation Amplify Opinion Power external link

Helberger, N.

Digital Journalism, vol. 8, num: 6, pp: 842-854, 2020

Abstract

This contribution critically reviews the ongoing policy initiatives in Europe to impose greater societal responsibility on social media platforms. I discuss the current regulatory approach of treating social platforms as mere 'intermediaries' of the speech of others and propose a different perspective. Instead of perceiving platforms as intermediaries and facilitators of the speech of others, I view social media platforms as active political actors in their own right, and wielders of considerable opinion power. I will explain how taking the perspective of opinion power throws a very different, and rather alarming light on the recent regulatory initiatives.

Links

https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1773888

europe, frontpage, Mediarecht, opinion power, pluralism, Regulation, Social media platforms

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Helberger, N.
PY  - 0714
DA  - 2020-07-14
T1  - The Political Power of Platforms: How Current Attempts to Regulate Misinformation Amplify Opinion Power
JO  - Digital Journalism
VL  - 8
NV  - 6
SP  - 842-854
AB  - This contribution critically reviews the ongoing policy initiatives in Europe to impose greater societal responsibility on social media platforms. I discuss the current regulatory approach of treating social platforms as mere \'intermediaries\' of the speech of others and propose a different perspective. Instead of perceiving platforms as intermediaries and facilitators of the speech of others, I view social media platforms as active political actors in their own right, and wielders of considerable opinion power. I will explain how taking the perspective of opinion power throws a very different, and rather alarming light on the recent regulatory initiatives.
K1  - europe
K1  - frontpage
K1  - Mediarecht
K1  - opinion power
K1  - pluralism
K1  - Regulation
K1  - Social media platforms
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{Helberger2020d,
	title = {The Political Power of Platforms: How Current Attempts to Regulate Misinformation Amplify Opinion Power},
	author = {Helberger, N.},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1773888},
	year = {0714},
	date = {2020-07-14},
	journal = {Digital Journalism},
	volume = {8},
	number = {6},
	pages = {842-854},
	abstract = {This contribution critically reviews the ongoing policy initiatives in Europe to impose greater societal responsibility on social media platforms. I discuss the current regulatory approach of treating social platforms as mere \'intermediaries\' of the speech of others and propose a different perspective. Instead of perceiving platforms as intermediaries and facilitators of the speech of others, I view social media platforms as active political actors in their own right, and wielders of considerable opinion power. I will explain how taking the perspective of opinion power throws a very different, and rather alarming light on the recent regulatory initiatives.},
	keywords = {europe, frontpage, Mediarecht, opinion power, pluralism, Regulation, Social media platforms},
}

Save .bib

Webinar on Public and Regulatory Framework of Online Intermediaries external link

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

2020

Abstract

Recording of the reCreating Europe Online Workshop on Public and Private Regulatory Framework of Online Intermediaries organized on 5 May 2020. Slides and report of the event also available at the links below.

Links

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9RccSMBSjE&t=5s https://www.recreating.eu/public-and-regulatory-framework-of-online-intermediaries-workshop/ https://zenodo.org/record/3833714#.XseaZGgzbIW

frontpage, online intermediaries, Regulation, webinar

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib