The Regulation of Disinformation Under the Digital Services Act

The Regulation of Disinformation Under the Digital Services Act external link

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

The Governance of the European Digital Identity Framework Through the Lens of Institutional Mimesis external link

Weigl, L. & Reysner, M.

Regulation & Governance, 2025

Abstract

The European Commission's decision to expand its 2014 Regulation on electronic identification and trust services toward wallet-based digital identities marked a significant shift in the governance of users' digital identities. The intersection between private digital services, public prerogatives, and individual self-determination raises questions of data governance, notably power conflicts over control and usage. This study investigates the governance of the European Digital Identity Framework using institutional isomorphism to understand how EU policy-making evolves and gains legitimacy by mimicking successful regulatory models like the GDPR. Our analysis shows that the narrowly defined scope of power for supervisory bodies allows greater discretion for Member States, which could make the system vulnerable to abuse. Additionally, the lack of organizational independence among these bodies further complicates governance arrangements.

Links

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Weigl, L.
AU  - Reysner, M.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-05-22
T1  - The Governance of the European Digital Identity Framework Through the Lens of Institutional Mimesis
JO  - Regulation & Governance
UR  - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rego.70032
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70032
AB  - The European Commission\'s decision to expand its 2014 Regulation on electronic identification and trust services toward wallet-based digital identities marked a significant shift in the governance of users\' digital identities. The intersection between private digital services, public prerogatives, and individual self-determination raises questions of data governance, notably power conflicts over control and usage. This study investigates the governance of the European Digital Identity Framework using institutional isomorphism to understand how EU policy-making evolves and gains legitimacy by mimicking successful regulatory models like the GDPR. Our analysis shows that the narrowly defined scope of power for supervisory bodies allows greater discretion for Member States, which could make the system vulnerable to abuse. Additionally, the lack of organizational independence among these bodies further complicates governance arrangements.
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {The Governance of the European Digital Identity Framework Through the Lens of Institutional Mimesis},
	author = {Weigl, L. and Reysner, M.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70032},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-05-22},
	journal = {Regulation & Governance},
	abstract = {The European Commission\'s decision to expand its 2014 Regulation on electronic identification and trust services toward wallet-based digital identities marked a significant shift in the governance of users\' digital identities. The intersection between private digital services, public prerogatives, and individual self-determination raises questions of data governance, notably power conflicts over control and usage. This study investigates the governance of the European Digital Identity Framework using institutional isomorphism to understand how EU policy-making evolves and gains legitimacy by mimicking successful regulatory models like the GDPR. Our analysis shows that the narrowly defined scope of power for supervisory bodies allows greater discretion for Member States, which could make the system vulnerable to abuse. Additionally, the lack of organizational independence among these bodies further complicates governance arrangements.},
}

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

Opinie: AI wordt alleen té slim, als we onszelf dom voordoen external link

Sax, M.

Trouw, 2025

Abstract

Wie denkt dat ChatGPT een therapeut kan vervangen, onderschat onze complexe sociale werkelijkheid, betoogt filosoof Marijn Sax.

Links

https://www.trouw.nl/opinie/opinie-ai-wordt-alleen-te-slim-als-we-onszelf-dom-voordoen~bd96a2d9/

Artificial intelligence

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

From threat to opportunity: Gaming the algorithmic system as a service external link

Sax, M. & Wang, H.

Internet Policy Review, vol. 14, iss. : 2, 2025

Abstract

Gaming the system – i.e., strategic attempts to manipulate the input(s) for, or one’s interactions with, an algorithmic system to try to secure a better outcome than intended by the system’s design – is commonly portrayed as a threat to online platforms and services. Tech companies often use this gaming concern to justify their reluctance to provide algorithmic transparency. In this paper, however, we will explore a new business model in the digital economy we call gaming-the-system-as-a-service (GaaS). In this model, transparency promises are wrapped into an assisted gaming service and sold as a premium feature. This way, the alleged risk of transparency – gaming the system – is turned into a monetisation feature for service providers. As such, GaaS is a typical example of how tech companies can attempt to turn regulatory pressures (e.g., to provide more insight into how its algorithmic curation and recommendation systems work) into a commercial opportunity. To begin to rethink our normative and regulatory approaches to the interface of transparency and gaming, we perform a first exploration of several potential challenges posed by this new business model. First, GaaS is entwined with an incentive structure that is hostile to consumers and exploitative in nature. Second, GaaS is essentially a pay-to-win feature, raising questions of equality and fairness. Third, the commodification of transparency through GaaS can ‘taint’ and erode transparency as an important democratic value.

Links

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Sax, M.
AU  - Wang, H.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-05-06
T1  - From threat to opportunity: Gaming the algorithmic system as a service
JO  - Internet Policy Review
VL  - 14
IS  - 2
UR  - https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/gaming-algorithmic-system
DO  - https://doi.org/10.14763/2025.2.2007
AB  - Gaming the system – i.e., strategic attempts to manipulate the input(s) for, or one’s interactions with, an algorithmic system to try to secure a better outcome than intended by the system’s design – is commonly portrayed as a threat to online platforms and services. Tech companies often use this gaming concern to justify their reluctance to provide algorithmic transparency. In this paper, however, we will explore a new business model in the digital economy we call gaming-the-system-as-a-service (GaaS). In this model, transparency promises are wrapped into an assisted gaming service and sold as a premium feature. This way, the alleged risk of transparency – gaming the system – is turned into a monetisation feature for service providers. As such, GaaS is a typical example of how tech companies can attempt to turn regulatory pressures (e.g., to provide more insight into how its algorithmic curation and recommendation systems work) into a commercial opportunity. To begin to rethink our normative and regulatory approaches to the interface of transparency and gaming, we perform a first exploration of several potential challenges posed by this new business model. First, GaaS is entwined with an incentive structure that is hostile to consumers and exploitative in nature. Second, GaaS is essentially a pay-to-win feature, raising questions of equality and fairness. Third, the commodification of transparency through GaaS can ‘taint’ and erode transparency as an important democratic value.
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {From threat to opportunity: Gaming the algorithmic system as a service},
	author = {Sax, M. and Wang, H.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.14763/2025.2.2007},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-05-06},
	journal = {Internet Policy Review},
	volume = {14},
	issue = {2},
	abstract = {Gaming the system – i.e., strategic attempts to manipulate the input(s) for, or one’s interactions with, an algorithmic system to try to secure a better outcome than intended by the system’s design – is commonly portrayed as a threat to online platforms and services. Tech companies often use this gaming concern to justify their reluctance to provide algorithmic transparency. In this paper, however, we will explore a new business model in the digital economy we call gaming-the-system-as-a-service (GaaS). In this model, transparency promises are wrapped into an assisted gaming service and sold as a premium feature. This way, the alleged risk of transparency – gaming the system – is turned into a monetisation feature for service providers. As such, GaaS is a typical example of how tech companies can attempt to turn regulatory pressures (e.g., to provide more insight into how its algorithmic curation and recommendation systems work) into a commercial opportunity. To begin to rethink our normative and regulatory approaches to the interface of transparency and gaming, we perform a first exploration of several potential challenges posed by this new business model. First, GaaS is entwined with an incentive structure that is hostile to consumers and exploitative in nature. Second, GaaS is essentially a pay-to-win feature, raising questions of equality and fairness. Third, the commodification of transparency through GaaS can ‘taint’ and erode transparency as an important democratic value.},
}

Save .bib

False sense of security and a flurry of misplaced trust: the construction of trust in and by Facebook external link

Bodó, B., Bene, M. & Boda, Z.

Information, Communication & Society, 2025

Abstract

In this research, we highlight the fundamental forces that shape the dynamics of trust in the digital society by examining how platform-specific and platform-mediated trust is constructed on Facebook. We define three potential pillars of trust considerations on which user trust in and on the platform may rest: (1) self-confidence in recognizing and hedging platform-related risks, (2) trust in the platform’s self-regulatory capacity, and (3) governmental platform regulation. We test our hypotheses on a unique cross-national survey covering seven European countries. Our results show that platform-specific trust is based on the perceived trustworthiness of the operating company and self-confidence in protection, but these two factors are less effective in building trust when either of them is lower, suggesting their amplifying rather than complementing role in building trust.

Links

trust

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Bodó, B.
AU  - Bene, M.
AU  - Boda, Z.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-04-09
T1  - False sense of security and a flurry of misplaced trust: the construction of trust in and by Facebook
JO  - Information, Communication & Society
UR  - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2025.2482651
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2025.2482651
AB  - In this research, we highlight the fundamental forces that shape the dynamics of trust in the digital society by examining how platform-specific and platform-mediated trust is constructed on Facebook. We define three potential pillars of trust considerations on which user trust in and on the platform may rest: (1) self-confidence in recognizing and hedging platform-related risks, (2) trust in the platform’s self-regulatory capacity, and (3) governmental platform regulation. We test our hypotheses on a unique cross-national survey covering seven European countries. Our results show that platform-specific trust is based on the perceived trustworthiness of the operating company and self-confidence in protection, but these two factors are less effective in building trust when either of them is lower, suggesting their amplifying rather than complementing role in building trust.
K1  - trust
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {False sense of security and a flurry of misplaced trust: the construction of trust in and by Facebook},
	author = {Bodó, B. and Bene, M. and Boda, Z.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2025.2482651},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-04-09},
	journal = {Information, Communication & Society},
	abstract = {In this research, we highlight the fundamental forces that shape the dynamics of trust in the digital society by examining how platform-specific and platform-mediated trust is constructed on Facebook. We define three potential pillars of trust considerations on which user trust in and on the platform may rest: (1) self-confidence in recognizing and hedging platform-related risks, (2) trust in the platform’s self-regulatory capacity, and (3) governmental platform regulation. We test our hypotheses on a unique cross-national survey covering seven European countries. Our results show that platform-specific trust is based on the perceived trustworthiness of the operating company and self-confidence in protection, but these two factors are less effective in building trust when either of them is lower, suggesting their amplifying rather than complementing role in building trust.},
	keywords = {trust},
}

Save .bib

A systematic literature review of security and privacy by design principles, norms, and strategies for digital technologies external link

Del-Real, C., Busser, E. de & Berg, B. van den

International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, vol. 39, iss. : 3, pp: 374-405, 2025

Abstract

This paper offers a comparative systematic literature review of the key principles, norms, and strategies associated with Security by Design (SbD) and Privacy by Design (PbD). Both frameworks are grounded in the idea that security and privacy should be integral components of digital technologies from the very beginning of the design process. Following PRISMA guidelines, we reviewed 82 documents sourced from databases such as the ACM Digital Library, EBSCO Library, IEEE Xplore, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science. Our analysis reveals that SbD and PbD share four fundamental principles: prevention/proactiveness, embeddedness, user-centricity, and transparency. The review also highlights the solid regulatory foundation of PbD, particularly under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), compared to the emerging regulatory context for SbD. Additionally, we explore a range of strategies, from organizational cultural changes to technical interventions, that illustrate the nuanced approaches taken to implement these paradigms. We conclude by discussing the broader implications of these findings and suggesting directions for future research, aiming to contribute to the development of technologies that are both secure and respectful of privacy, while also advocating for integrated frameworks that enhance digital trust.

Links

Privacy, Software design

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Del-Real, C.
AU  - Busser, E. de
AU  - Berg, B. van den
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-01-31
T1  - A systematic literature review of security and privacy by design principles, norms, and strategies for digital technologies
JO  - International Review of Law, Computers & Technology
VL  - 39
IS  - 3
SP  - 374-405
UR  - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600869.2025.2457227
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2025.2457227
AB  - This paper offers a comparative systematic literature review of the key principles, norms, and strategies associated with Security by Design (SbD) and Privacy by Design (PbD). Both frameworks are grounded in the idea that security and privacy should be integral components of digital technologies from the very beginning of the design process. Following PRISMA guidelines, we reviewed 82 documents sourced from databases such as the ACM Digital Library, EBSCO Library, IEEE Xplore, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science. Our analysis reveals that SbD and PbD share four fundamental principles: prevention/proactiveness, embeddedness, user-centricity, and transparency. The review also highlights the solid regulatory foundation of PbD, particularly under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), compared to the emerging regulatory context for SbD. Additionally, we explore a range of strategies, from organizational cultural changes to technical interventions, that illustrate the nuanced approaches taken to implement these paradigms. We conclude by discussing the broader implications of these findings and suggesting directions for future research, aiming to contribute to the development of technologies that are both secure and respectful of privacy, while also advocating for integrated frameworks that enhance digital trust.
K1  - Privacy
K1  - Software design
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {A systematic literature review of security and privacy by design principles, norms, and strategies for digital technologies},
	author = {Del-Real, C. and Busser, E. de and Berg, B. van den},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2025.2457227},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-01-31},
	journal = {International Review of Law, Computers & Technology},
	volume = {39},
	issue = {3},
	pages = {374-405},
	abstract = {This paper offers a comparative systematic literature review of the key principles, norms, and strategies associated with Security by Design (SbD) and Privacy by Design (PbD). Both frameworks are grounded in the idea that security and privacy should be integral components of digital technologies from the very beginning of the design process. Following PRISMA guidelines, we reviewed 82 documents sourced from databases such as the ACM Digital Library, EBSCO Library, IEEE Xplore, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science. Our analysis reveals that SbD and PbD share four fundamental principles: prevention/proactiveness, embeddedness, user-centricity, and transparency. The review also highlights the solid regulatory foundation of PbD, particularly under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), compared to the emerging regulatory context for SbD. Additionally, we explore a range of strategies, from organizational cultural changes to technical interventions, that illustrate the nuanced approaches taken to implement these paradigms. We conclude by discussing the broader implications of these findings and suggesting directions for future research, aiming to contribute to the development of technologies that are both secure and respectful of privacy, while also advocating for integrated frameworks that enhance digital trust.},
	keywords = {Privacy, Software design},
}

Save .bib

AI governance in the spotlight: an empirical analysis of Dutch political parties’ strategies for the 2023 elections external link

Morosoli, S., Kieslich, K., Resendez, V. & Drunen, M. van

Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 2025

Abstract

AI-based technologies are having an increasing impact on society, which raises the question of how this technology will be addressed politically. Thereby, political actors have a dual role to play: They can provide investment to enhance the development and subsequent adoption of these systems while also bearing the responsibility of safeguarding citizens from harm. Hereby, the degree of politicization of the topic, i.e. if a topic is part of the public and political debate, has an immense influence on the political approach to tackle the issue. The more a topic is politicized, the more urgency political parties experience to develop concrete governance approaches. Yet, existing research has not analyzed party programs in terms of discourse around artificial intelligence and policy recommendations. This study focuses on the Netherlands and explores how Dutch political parties discuss AI in their political programs for the 2023 election. We conducted a manual content analysis of all party manifestos for the 2023 elections. Our analysis shows that most parties do not place a big emphasis on AI. And if so, most of the policy proposals are rather reactive to issues that happened in the past, rather than taking a prospective governance approach.

Links

Artificial intelligence, governance, Politics

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Morosoli, S.
AU  - Kieslich, K.
AU  - Resendez, V.
AU  - Drunen, M. van
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-05-13
T1  - AI governance in the spotlight: an empirical analysis of Dutch political parties’ strategies for the 2023 elections
JO  - Journal of Information Technology & Politics
UR  - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19331681.2025.2504519
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2025.2504519
AB  - AI-based technologies are having an increasing impact on society, which raises the question of how this technology will be addressed politically. Thereby, political actors have a dual role to play: They can provide investment to enhance the development and subsequent adoption of these systems while also bearing the responsibility of safeguarding citizens from harm. Hereby, the degree of politicization of the topic, i.e. if a topic is part of the public and political debate, has an immense influence on the political approach to tackle the issue. The more a topic is politicized, the more urgency political parties experience to develop concrete governance approaches. Yet, existing research has not analyzed party programs in terms of discourse around artificial intelligence and policy recommendations. This study focuses on the Netherlands and explores how Dutch political parties discuss AI in their political programs for the 2023 election. We conducted a manual content analysis of all party manifestos for the 2023 elections. Our analysis shows that most parties do not place a big emphasis on AI. And if so, most of the policy proposals are rather reactive to issues that happened in the past, rather than taking a prospective governance approach.
K1  - Artificial intelligence
K1  - governance
K1  - Politics
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {AI governance in the spotlight: an empirical analysis of Dutch political parties’ strategies for the 2023 elections},
	author = {Morosoli, S. and Kieslich, K. and Resendez, V. and Drunen, M. van},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2025.2504519},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-05-13},
	journal = {Journal of Information Technology & Politics},
	abstract = {AI-based technologies are having an increasing impact on society, which raises the question of how this technology will be addressed politically. Thereby, political actors have a dual role to play: They can provide investment to enhance the development and subsequent adoption of these systems while also bearing the responsibility of safeguarding citizens from harm. Hereby, the degree of politicization of the topic, i.e. if a topic is part of the public and political debate, has an immense influence on the political approach to tackle the issue. The more a topic is politicized, the more urgency political parties experience to develop concrete governance approaches. Yet, existing research has not analyzed party programs in terms of discourse around artificial intelligence and policy recommendations. This study focuses on the Netherlands and explores how Dutch political parties discuss AI in their political programs for the 2023 election. We conducted a manual content analysis of all party manifestos for the 2023 elections. Our analysis shows that most parties do not place a big emphasis on AI. And if so, most of the policy proposals are rather reactive to issues that happened in the past, rather than taking a prospective governance approach.},
	keywords = {Artificial intelligence, governance, Politics},
}

Save .bib

The Harmonized Law of Streaming in the Eu – A Copyright and Related Rights Perspective download

Senftleben, M.

Copyright Law and Streaming: A Comparative Law Analysis of Lawful and Unlawful Streaming Services, Brill/Nijhoff, 2025, pp: 95-134

Abstract

EU law does not contain a distinct set of rules seeking to regulate various types of streaming services. Instead, the harmonized rules governing streaming services follow from individual pieces of EU legislation – ranging from rules on online broadcasting to a specific liability regime for platforms allowing users to upload and share content – and decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’). The following analysis, first, provides an overview of the exclusive rights that must be taken into account in streaming scenarios. This discussion also addresses the exemption of temporary acts of copying that may cover the reception of streaming content by users (section 2). Rights clearance questions occupy centre stage in sections 3 (general services, such as Netflix) and 4 (platforms for user-generated content (‘UGC’), such as YouTube). Section 5 raises the issue of content filtering obligations in the specific legal regime for on-demand streaming of content uploaded by users. Section 6 takes a closer look at copyright limitations that may become relevant in streaming cases, including private copying rules and the exemption of quotations, parodies and pastiches. Section 7 explains the remarkable extension of the concept of ‘communication to the public’ to the provision of streaming equipment for illegal content and infrastructures for illegal file-sharing. It also examines the legal framework for website blocking. In section 8, the results of the analysis will be summarized.

Links

Copyright

RIS

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Senftleben, M.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-06-12
T1  - The Harmonized Law of Streaming in the Eu – A Copyright and Related Rights Perspective
SP  - 95-134
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/nl/publications/the-harmonized-law-of-streaming-in-the-eu-a-copyright-and-related-rights-perspective/harmonized-law-of-streaming-in-the-eu/
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004711525_004
AB  - EU law does not contain a distinct set of rules seeking to regulate various types of streaming services. Instead, the harmonized rules governing streaming services follow from individual pieces of EU legislation – ranging from rules on online broadcasting to a specific liability regime for platforms allowing users to upload and share content – and decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’). The following analysis, first, provides an overview of the exclusive rights that must be taken into account in streaming scenarios. This discussion also addresses the exemption of temporary acts of copying that may cover the reception of streaming content by users (section 2). Rights clearance questions occupy centre stage in sections 3 (general services, such as Netflix) and 4 (platforms for user-generated content (‘UGC’), such as YouTube). Section 5 raises the issue of content filtering obligations in the specific legal regime for on-demand streaming of content uploaded by users. Section 6 takes a closer look at copyright limitations that may become relevant in streaming cases, including private copying rules and the exemption of quotations, parodies and pastiches. Section 7 explains the remarkable extension of the concept of ‘communication to the public’ to the provision of streaming equipment for illegal content and infrastructures for illegal file-sharing. It also examines the legal framework for website blocking. In section 8, the results of the analysis will be summarized.
K1  - Copyright
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Chapter{nokey,
	title = {The Harmonized Law of Streaming in the Eu – A Copyright and Related Rights Perspective},
	author = {Senftleben, M.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004711525_004},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-06-12},
	pages = {95-134},
	abstract = {EU law does not contain a distinct set of rules seeking to regulate various types of streaming services. Instead, the harmonized rules governing streaming services follow from individual pieces of EU legislation – ranging from rules on online broadcasting to a specific liability regime for platforms allowing users to upload and share content – and decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’). The following analysis, first, provides an overview of the exclusive rights that must be taken into account in streaming scenarios. This discussion also addresses the exemption of temporary acts of copying that may cover the reception of streaming content by users (section 2). Rights clearance questions occupy centre stage in sections 3 (general services, such as Netflix) and 4 (platforms for user-generated content (‘UGC’), such as YouTube). Section 5 raises the issue of content filtering obligations in the specific legal regime for on-demand streaming of content uploaded by users. Section 6 takes a closer look at copyright limitations that may become relevant in streaming cases, including private copying rules and the exemption of quotations, parodies and pastiches. Section 7 explains the remarkable extension of the concept of ‘communication to the public’ to the provision of streaming equipment for illegal content and infrastructures for illegal file-sharing. It also examines the legal framework for website blocking. In section 8, the results of the analysis will be summarized.},
	keywords = {Copyright},
}

Save .bib

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie 4 oktober 2024 (Maximilian Schrems / Meta Platforms Ireland) download

Dommering, E.

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. : 15, num: 111, pp: 2065-2067, 2025

Abstract

Verzoek om een prejudiciële beslissing krachtens artikel 267 VWEU, ingediend door het Oberste Gerichtshof (hoogste federale rechter in burgerlijke en strafzaken, Oostenrijk) bij beslissing van 23 juni 2021. Bescherming van natuurlijke personen in verband met de verwerking van persoonsgegevens. Online sociale netwerken. Algemene gebruiksvoorwaarden in verband met overeenkomsten tussen een digitaal platform en een gebruiker. Gepersonaliseerde reclame. Beginsel van doelbinding. Beginsel van minimale gegevensverwerking. Verwerking van bijzondere categorieën van persoonsgegevens. Gegevens betreffende de seksuele geaardheid. Gegevens die door de betrokkene openbaar zijn gemaakt.

Links

Annotatie_NJ_2025_111

RIS

TY  - CASE
AU  - Dommering, E.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-06-03
T1  - Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie 4 oktober 2024 (Maximilian Schrems / Meta Platforms Ireland)
JO  - Nederlandse Jurisprudentie
IS  - 15
NV  - 111
SP  - 2065-2067
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/nl/publications/annotatie-bij-hof-van-justitie-van-de-europese-unie-4-oktober-2024-maximilian-schrems-meta-platforms-ireland/annotatie_nj_2025_111/
AB  - Verzoek om een prejudiciële beslissing krachtens artikel 267 VWEU, ingediend door het Oberste Gerichtshof (hoogste federale rechter in burgerlijke en strafzaken, Oostenrijk) bij beslissing van 23 juni 2021. Bescherming van natuurlijke personen in verband met de verwerking van persoonsgegevens. Online sociale netwerken. Algemene gebruiksvoorwaarden in verband met overeenkomsten tussen een digitaal platform en een gebruiker. Gepersonaliseerde reclame. Beginsel van doelbinding. Beginsel van minimale gegevensverwerking. Verwerking van bijzondere categorieën van persoonsgegevens. Gegevens betreffende de seksuele geaardheid. Gegevens die door de betrokkene openbaar zijn gemaakt.
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Top Keywords

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex