Publications
Top Keywords
- Art. 10 EVRM (25)
- Art. 17 CDSM Directive (13)
- Artificial intelligence (76)
- Big data (12)
- Constitutional and administrative law (11)
- Consumer law (11)
- Content moderation (22)
- Copyright (201)
- Cybersecurity (10)
- Data protection (29)
- Data protection law (11)
- Digital Services Act (DSA) (31)
- Digital Single Market (13)
- EU (19)
- EU law (25)
- Europe (12)
- European Union (10)
- Fake news (14)
- Freedom of expression (49)
- Fundamental rights (18)
- GDPR (22)
- Human rights (31)
- Intellectual property (30)
- Internet (24)
- Journalism (15)
- Kluwer Information Law Series (43)
- Licensing (14)
- Media law (28)
- Online platforms (20)
- Patent law (20)
- Personal data (35)
- Platforms (24)
- Privacy (327)
- Regulation (12)
- Social media (11)
- Software (10)
- Surveillance (11)
- Text and Data Mining (TDM) (21)
- Trademark law (15)
- Transparency (19)
Decentralised law enforcement: A case study of Ethereum’s proof of stake mechanism for moderation practices external link
Abstract
This paper examines the evolving role of the Ethereum blockchain's consensus layer as a potential tool for decentralised law enforcement, with a focus on its Proof-of-Stake (PoS) mechanism and its implications for moderation practices. While it was traditionally designed for credible neutrality, Ethereum's consensus layer is now facing increasing pressure to assist in regulatory enforcement, particularly concerning the U.S. OFAC sanction list. This shift raises fundamental questions about whether a decentralised platform can effectively meet regulatory requirements without compromising its core principles of transparency, security, decentralisation and censorship resistance. This paper dives into the roles and incentives of actors in the consensus mechanism, with a main focus on builders, relays and validators. It also looks into the complexities introduced by Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) and the Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS). The paper critically assesses Ethereum's potential to function as a regulatory enforcement tool by discussing its inherent limitations, the current stance on adhering to OFAC sanction lists, and other relevant decision-making factors. It also considers the risks associated with leveraging this decentralised platform for regulatory purposes, including the potential for unintended consequences such as privacy and security concerns, and the erosion of core values. Ultimately, this paper aims to provide insights into whether Ethereum can effectively be leveraged as a regulatory enforcement technology while maintaining its fundamental attributes. We find that Ethereum can leverage compliance to a certain degree, particularly through mechanisms that incentivise validators to exclude sanctioned transactions, and with simple regulation to adhere to. However, the platform's decentralised nature and commitment to censorship resistance means that complete alignment with traditional regulatory frameworks is unlikely. This highlights the fundamental trade-offs that are inherent to attempting to impose centralised control on a decentralised system.
Links
RIS
Bibtex
Trust in context: The impact of regulation on blockchain and DeFi external link
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
Bibtex
Opinie: Het is tijd om afscheid te nemen van Spotify download
Democratische dijkverzwaring download
Public Knowledge and Expertise Under Authoritarian Siege: A Defense of Academic Freedom from Digital Journalism Studies external link
Abstract
This article addresses the growing global assault on academic free-dom—a cornerstone of democratic societies now under increasingthreat from authoritarian regimes. It highlights a global decline inthat freedom since its peak 20 years ago, focusing on the UnitedStates in 2025 to illustrate rapidly escalating academic silencing, evenin a country with well-established democratic freedoms and institu-tions. Drawing on the collective expertise of international scholars indigital journalism studies (DJS)—a field situated at the crossroads ofvulnerable institutions—and informed by anonymous reports fromU.S.-based academics as well as the wider academic literature, thiscommentary examines the impact of political interference, censorship,and self-censorship in academia. It argues that DJS as a field mustdevelop approaches that actively resist authoritarianism and upholdfreedom of expression and inquiry. The commentary concludes witha normative framework for doing this, proposing a three-prongedapproach to defending the larger field, the scholarship within it, andthe wellbeing of individual scholars of digital journalism studies.
Links
academic freedom, academic research, censorship, Freedom of expression
RIS
Bibtex
Three Paths, One Goal Trialogue: Narrating the philosophical, legal and creative perspectives on emerging technologies external link
Abstract
At the AI-Imaginations and Public Safety symposium at Erasmus University Rotterdam on June 19, DigiCon’s Sci-Fi Team experimented with an unconventional way of presenting academic ideas. When it comes to emerging technologies, the responsibility for understanding, explaining, and responding to them often falls to key figures. The most important of these arguably are philosophers, legal scholars, and tech creators. But as we’ve seen in the literature for years, there’s insufficient shared vocabulary, understanding, or common ground between these roles. For this reason, we prepared our own imaginary narrative for a trialogue between these roles on the issues that need to be discussed, in order to build bridges between the interrelated fields more effectively. Here, we share the full text of the trialogue.
RIS
Bibtex
Public consultation on the legislative proposal for a Cloud and AI Development Act download
Abstract
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the European Commissions public consultation on the proposed AI Cloud and Development Act. I make this submission in my capacity as an academic with expertise in European Union (EU) data centres sustainability policy. In my submission I will address the following issues: 1. EUs sustainability commitments in relation to digitalisation and, in particular, data centres; 2. The requirements for data centre sector sustainability; and 3. The case for public value-oriented digital infrastructure.
Links
Artificial intelligence
RIS
Bibtex
Fashion Waste, Trade Mark Protection, and the Circular Economy: Towards a New Public Domain for Sustainable Reuse download
Abstract
Traditionally, the debate on trade mark law and the public domain has focused on the strategic use of trade mark law to artificially prolong exclusive rights after the expiry of protection in intellectual property systems with a limited term, and the grant of trade mark rights covering public domain material, such as cultural signs and traditional cultural expressions. While the glamorous world of fashion offers examples of protection term extension and public domain re-appropriation cases, the following analysis focuses on fashion reuse in the circular economy as a phenomenon that can be placed in a public domain context. Considering the urgent need for measures to enhance legal certainty for sustainable fashion reuse in the circular economy, the question arises whether the time has come to discuss a limitation of trade mark rights and a corresponding broadening of the public domain. More concretely, it seems tempting to establish a new public domain by giving second-hand and unsold fashion items the status of freely available resources for sustainable upcycling and reuse in the circular economy—even if these fashion items bear protected third-party brand insignia. Exploring options for the practical implementation of this new public domain space, the analysis will yield the insight that the termination of trade mark rights is beyond reach. Alternatively, however, lawmakers and judges could consider introducing a robust principle of free reuse that shields initiatives leading to the sustainable reuse of trade-marked fashion items effectively against allegations of trade mark infringement.
Fashion, Freedom of expression, Intellectual property, public domain, trade mark
RIS
Bibtex
A nightmare to control: Legal and organizational challenges around the procurement of journalistic AI from external technology providers external link
Abstract
Little research has explored the process of procuring AI systems in the media from the perspective of contractual terms and conditions. It’s importance is underscored by the emerging regulatory framework coming from Brussels that embraces private ordering through mechanisms such as negotiations, instructions, and standardization. This article addresses the following research questions: How are journalistic AI procurement processes perceived by professionals? What are the practical and legal obstacles experienced in negotiating procurement conditions? How to improve media organizations’ contractual negotiation power? The study is grounded in 12 semi-structured interviews with members of media organizations (lawyers, technologists, and managers) and an analysis of 16 terms and conditions of companies providing AI systems. Based on its findings, it strives to propose a contractual counter-power for (especially smaller and local) media actors interested in using journalistic AI.
Links
Artificial intelligence, Journalism