Max van Drunen
Max van Drunen is a PhD candidate at the Institute for Information Law. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology (2014) and a Master’s degree in both Civil and European Law (2015 and 2016). His research is part of the Personalised Communications project and is being supervised by Natali Helberger. It focuses on the effects of personalized communication on media users’ trust in editorial integrity.
Publicaties
| Drunen, M. van, Helberger, N., Möller, J., Vrijenhoek, S. Internet Policy Review, 2021, (Opinion). @article{Helberger2021b, title = {Regulation of news recommenders in the Digital Services Act: empowering David against the Very Large Online Goliath}, author = {Helberger, N. and Drunen, M. van and Vrijenhoek, S. and M\"{o}ller, J.}, url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/news/regulation-news-recommenders-digital-services-act-empowering-david-against-very-large}, year = {2021}, date = {2021-02-26}, journal = {Internet Policy Review}, note = {Opinion}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Appelman, N., Ausloos, J., Drunen, M. van, Helberger, N. 2020. @techreport{Drunen2020b, title = {News Recommenders and Cooperative Explainability: Confronting the contextual complexity in AI explanations}, author = {Drunen, M. van and Ausloos, J. and Appelman, N. and Helberger, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Visiepaper-explainable-AI-final.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-11-03}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } |
| Drunen, M. van Journal of Media Law, 12 (2), pp. 166-190, 2020. @article{Drunen2020, title = {The post-editorial control era: how EU media law matches platforms’ organisational control with cooperative responsibility}, author = {Drunen, M. van}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17577632.2020.1796067}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2020.1796067}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-28}, journal = {Journal of Media Law}, volume = {12}, number = {2}, pages = {166-190}, abstract = {This paper argues the AVMSD attaches cooperative responsibility to platforms’ organisational control. Firstly, it explores how the new concept of organisational control differs from the editorial control that has traditionally been central to media law, in particular concerning the greater involvement of other stakeholders active on platforms. Secondly, it analyses the measures the AVMSD requires platforms to take with regard to content on their service in light of their organisational control. Finally, it shows how the AVMSD not only requires platforms to assume responsibility for actions under their direct control, but also to enable users and uploaders to exercise their inherent influence differently. The AVMSD consequently moves away from centralised, and towards cooperative responsibility for platforms. The paper concludes by evaluating the choices the AVMSD makes (and fails to make) in the operationalisation of this new responsibility model.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } This paper argues the AVMSD attaches cooperative responsibility to platforms’ organisational control. Firstly, it explores how the new concept of organisational control differs from the editorial control that has traditionally been central to media law, in particular concerning the greater involvement of other stakeholders active on platforms. Secondly, it analyses the measures the AVMSD requires platforms to take with regard to content on their service in light of their organisational control. Finally, it shows how the AVMSD not only requires platforms to assume responsibility for actions under their direct control, but also to enable users and uploaders to exercise their inherent influence differently. The AVMSD consequently moves away from centralised, and towards cooperative responsibility for platforms. The paper concludes by evaluating the choices the AVMSD makes (and fails to make) in the operationalisation of this new responsibility model. |
| Bastian, M., Drunen, M. van, Eskens, S., Helberger, N., Möller, J. Implications of AI-driven tools in the media for freedom of expression 2020, (Council of Europe, September 2019). @techreport{Helberger2020, title = {Implications of AI-driven tools in the media for freedom of expression}, author = {Helberger, N. and Eskens, S. and Drunen, M. van and Bastian, M. and M\"{o}ller, J.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AI-and-Freedom-of-Expression.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-05}, publisher = {Council of Europe, September 2019}, abstract = {Background Paper to the Ministerial Conference "Artificial Intelligence - Intelligent Politics: Challenges and opportunities for media and democracy, Cyprus, 28-29 May 2020."}, note = {Council of Europe, September 2019}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } Background Paper to the Ministerial Conference "Artificial Intelligence - Intelligent Politics: Challenges and opportunities for media and democracy, Cyprus, 28-29 May 2020." |
| Bastian, M., Drunen, M. van, Helberger, N. International Data Privacy Law, 2019 , 2019. @article{Drunen2019, title = {Know you algorithm: what media organizations need to explain to their users about news personalization}, author = {Drunen, M. van and Helberger, N. and Bastian, M.}, url = {https://academic.oup.com/idpl/advance-article/doi/10.1093/idpl/ipz011/5544759}, doi = {10.1093/idpl/ipz011}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-10-01}, journal = {International Data Privacy Law}, volume = {2019}, abstract = {Key Points: - If the right to an explanation is expected to effectively safeguard users’ rights, it must be interpreted in a manner that takes the contextual risks algorithms pose to those rights into account. - This article provides a framework of transparency instruments in the context of the news personalization algorithms employed by both traditional media organizations and social media companies. - Explaining the impact on a user’s news diet and the role of editorial values in the algorithm is especially important in this context. - Conversely, explanations of individual decisions and counterfactual explanations face specific practical and normative barriers that limit their utility.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Key Points: - If the right to an explanation is expected to effectively safeguard users’ rights, it must be interpreted in a manner that takes the contextual risks algorithms pose to those rights into account. - This article provides a framework of transparency instruments in the context of the news personalization algorithms employed by both traditional media organizations and social media companies. - Explaining the impact on a user’s news diet and the role of editorial values in the algorithm is especially important in this context. - Conversely, explanations of individual decisions and counterfactual explanations face specific practical and normative barriers that limit their utility. |
| Drunen, M. van, Helberger, N., Leerssen, P. Germany proposes Europe's first diversity rules for social media platforms LSE Media Policy Project Blog, 2019 , 2019. @article{Helberger2019, title = {Germany proposes Europe's first diversity rules for social media platforms}, author = {Helberger, N. and Leerssen, P. and Drunen, M. van}, url = {https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2019/05/29/germany-proposes-europes-first-diversity-rules-for-social-media-platforms/}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-06-06}, journal = {LSE Media Policy Project Blog}, volume = {2019}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |