POSTS BY Giovanni De Gregorio
24 May 2023

Monetising Harmful Content on Social Media

The possibility to profit from the dissemination of harmful content triggering views, engagement, and ultimately monetisation does not only concern the contractual relationship between social media and  influencers, but also affects how other users enjoy digital spaces. The monetisation of harmful content by influencers should be a trigger, first, to expand the role of consumer law as a form of content regulation fostering transparency and, second, to propose a new regulatory approach to mitigate the imbalance of powers between influencers and users in social media spaces. Continue reading >>
0
21 April 2022
, ,

Shareholder Power as a Constitutionalising Force: Elon Musk’s Bid to Buy Twitter

On 14 April 2022, billionaire Elon Musk came with one of his extravagant ideas: he offered to buy Twitter. According to Musk, who is already majority shareholder, the bid was motivated by his will to fully “unlock” the online platform’s potential as a space for free speech across the globe. This episode calls for a reflection on the future of online platforms as digital spaces for the flourishing of public debate and democracy. Continue reading >>
0
10 March 2022
, ,

Big Tech War Activism

The war in Ukraine is live. It’s not only live on CNN or Al Jazeera but it’s live on different social media platforms, for better and worse. In this context, Big Tech platforms are not neutral. Rather, along with their users, they are giving rise to a new wave of tech war activism, siding with Ukraine. While many of these initiatives may be well intended, this new form of tech activism raises questions about the role of social media in times of war. Continue reading >>
31 August 2021
,

The European Constitutional Road to Address Platform Power

The functions exercised by online platforms raise questions about the safeguarding of fundamental rights and democratic values from the autonomous discretion of the private sector, which is not bound by constitutional law. The Digital Services Act horizontally translates European constitutional values to private relationships, to limit governance by platforms. Continue reading >>
11 May 2021
, ,

Trump’s Indefinite Ban

After months of waiting, the Facebook Oversight Board has upheld Facebook’s ban of former President Donald Trump. Beyond the merits, the decision underlines a trend showing how the FOB is applying protections of free speech. The FOB’s increasing reliance on the principle of proportionality and transparency is a paradigmatic example of an ever-growing distance to the First Amendment dogma characterising US constitutionalism and the proximity to the European (digital) constitutional approach. Continue reading >>
26 February 2021
, ,

Flexing the Muscles of Information Power

Since July 2020, the global news media industry has been looking at Australia’s draft code, that would force Google and Facebook to negotiate with news publishers, pay for news, share data and advertising revenues. Facebook, in response, decided to ban Australian publishers and users from sharing or viewing Australian as well as international news content. Soon after, the social media changed its view, once the Australian government decided to step back and negotiate with Facebook. This interaction is not just an example of how Facebook can influence public policies, but also shows how powers are relocated among different actors in the information society. Continue reading >>
05 February 2021
,

Shedding Light on the Darkness of Content Moderation

With the Facebook Oversight Board, we face a new age of private adjudication of online content, which promises an alternative system to enforce human rights on a global scale, while marginalising and hybridising constitutional values and democratic safeguards. Digital constitutionalism offers a framework to look at this new form of private adjudication of online content and its challenges. A look at the FOB’s first cases is an opportunity peek behind the scenes of content moderation, as well as a laboratory to study the transnational challenges which the information society has raised to global (digital) constitutionalism. Continue reading >>
0
Go to Top