24 October 2023
Who Decides What Counts as Disinformation in the EU?
Who decides what counts as “disinformation” in the EU? Not public authorities, because disinformation is not directly sanctioned in the Digital Service Act (DSA) or other secondary legislation. Nor Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSes), which avoid editorial decisions to maintain their legal status as intermediaries with limited liability. Instead, the delicate task of identifying disinformation is being undertaken by other private organisations whose place of administration and activity, purpose, funding and organizational structure appear problematic in terms of the legitimacy and even legality of the fight against disinformation. This blog post maps out the relevant (private) actors, namely the ad industry, fact checking organizations and so-called source-raters. Continue reading >>
0 
18 October 2023
A Step Forward in Fighting Online Antisemitism
Online antisemitism is on the rise. Especially since the recent terror attack by Hamas in Southern Israel, platforms like X are (mis)used to propel antisemitism. Against this backdrop, this blog post analyses the legal framework for combatting online antisemitism in the EU and the regulatory approaches taken so far. It addresses the new Digital Services Act (DSA), highlighting some of the provisions that might become particularly important in the fight against antisemitism. The DSA improves protection against online hate speech in general and antisemitism in particular by introducing procedural and transparency obligations. However, it does not provide any substantive standards against which the illegality of such manifestations can be assessed. In order to effectively reduce online antisemitism in Europe, we need to think further, as outlined in the following blog post. Continue reading >>23 May 2023
A New European Enforcer?
As a key piece of the European Commission’s digital agenda, the Digital Services Act (DSA) is drawing a lot of attention from civil society, industry, and regulators. One particularly interesting development in that regard is the Commission’s current transformation from being the institution leading the DSA’s negotiations to the one enforcing it. This article explores the challenges faced by the Commission in this transformation. Continue reading >>
0
10 May 2023
Taiwan’s Participatory Plans for Platform Governance
Platform regulation is not limited to Europe or the United States. Although much debate currently focuses on the latest news from Brussels, California, or Washington, other important regulatory ideas emerge elsewhere. One particularly consequential idea can be found in Taiwan. Simply put, Taiwan wants to, tacitly, democratize platform governance. Concretely, Taiwan wanted to establish a dedicated body that would potentially facilitate far-reaching civil society participation and enable ongoing citizen involvement in platform governance. This article explains what discourses about platform governance can learn from Taiwan and how vivid democratic discourse shapes platform governance beyond traditional regulatory models. Continue reading >>
0
27 February 2023
Action Recommended
The DSA will have a say in what measures social media platforms will have to implement with regard to the recommendation engines they deploy to curate people’s feeds and timelines. It is a departure from the previous narrow view of content moderation, and pays closer attention to risks stemming from the amplification of harmful content and the underlying design choices. But it is too early to celebrate. Continue reading >>
0
13 February 2023
The platform-media relationship in the European Media Freedom Act
The European Media Freedom Act proposal takes aim at very large online platforms’ gatekeeping power over access to media content and aims to reshape the relationship between media and platforms. By providing media organisations a special position on platforms, however, the EMFA risks changing the media’s role and relationships with other actors in ways that run counter to its overall objective to secure media freedom. Continue reading >>
0
07 February 2023
Die Störerhaftung ist tot, lang lebe die Störerhaftung
In der rechtswissenschaftlichen Debatte melden sich erste Stimmen, die den Urteilen in den Verfahren YouTube II und Uploaded III entnehmen, dass der BGH die Störerhaftung für sämtliche Vermittlungsdienste abgeschafft habe. Mit anderen Worten könnten nun etwa auch Access Provider, Domain Registrare oder DNS-Dienste als Täter von Urheberrechtsverletzungen ihrer Nutzer haften. Diese Lesart der beiden Urteile zur Haftung von Sharing-Plattformen ist nicht nur rechtlich fernliegend, die Ausweitung der Haftung neutraler Diensteanbieter droht die Grundrechtseinschränkungen, die bereits an der Störerhaftung kritisiert wurden, zu potenzieren. Continue reading >>
0
04 February 2023
“Marg bar Khamenei”
The Oversight Board has evaluated the use of a protest slogan used by Iranian dissidents, calling for "marg bar Khamenei", which literally translates as "death to Khamenei", yet is often used to mean "down with Khamenei". Meta removed it for violating its community standards against violence and incitement. At EU level, Art. 14(4) DSA provides for an unprecedented obligation, which requires social media platforms to act in a proportionate manner in applying and enforcing their terms and conditions, with due regard to the rights and legitimate interests of all parties involved. Examining the Oversight Board's reasoning, we explore how Art. 14(4) DSA would be operationalized in this case. Continue reading >>
0
22 December 2022
Much Ado About Nothing
On 15 December, the European Commission adopted a European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade. It builds upon primary EU law instruments, and the question inevitably arises of what additional value and effect the Declaration may have. Continue reading >>
0
14 December 2022
Twitter – Wie der Digital Services Act willkürlichen (Ent-)Sperrungen und der „Generalamnestie“ eine Absage erteilt
Die Willkür Elon Musks auf Twitter sorgt für Entsetzen. Er hat durch willkürliche (Ent-)Sperrungen von Nutzer*innen zur Unsicherheit und Polarisierung des Online-Diskurses beigetragen. Derartiger Willkür bei der Mitgliedermoderation wird der neue Digital Services Act der EU einen Riegel vorschieben. Continue reading >>
0