Leaving the European Safe Harbor, Sailing Towards Algorithmic Content Regulation

Riis, Thomas; Schwemer, Sebastian Felix

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3300159

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Es difícil ver como esto cumple con la obligación consagrada en la CDFUE de que las restricciones a los derechos fundamentales han de estar consagradas en la ley. También es difícil entender cómo la libertad de expresión puede ser efectivamente protegida contra algún posible abuso de Europol o las plataformas privadas de redes sociales ya que este procedimiento, a todas luces, está falto de transparencia, de garantías de debido proceso y de un adecuado control judicial (Riis & Schwemer, 2019). Como hemos dicho, la EU-IRU es reflejo de la tendencia por la cual la adjudicación del derecho fundamental a la libertad de expresión se delega a empresas privadas, en este caso, en nombre de la lucha contra el terrorismo (Belli & Sappa, 2017).…”

Section: Otros Ejemplos En La Unión Europea: La Directiva De Serviciounclassified

Un estira y afloja: La definición de las reglas para la libre expresión en las plataformas de redes sociales

Presuel

2021

Jurídicas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este trabajo estudia la regulación de la libre expresión en las redes sociales para evidenciar que existen dos tendencias encontradas. Una tendencia judicial en la Unión Europea (UE) que busca que las leyes locales sobre libertad de expresión se apliquen más allá de su jurisdicción original para así proteger más efectivamente los derechos de sus gobernados. Otra tendencia, contradictoria, también dentro de la UE, consiste en adoptar leyes que delegan la función de moderar la libertad de expresión online a las plataformas de redes sociales. Esto revela que las mismas plataformas buscan fomentar esta tendencia adoptando esquemas privados de resolución de conflictos relativos a la moderación de contenidos para legitimar sus reglas privadas y probar que son garantía suficiente para los derechos fundamentales, y evitar esfuerzos gubernamentales de adopción de regulación más estricta. Metodológicamente, el trabajo estudia ejemplos extraídos del actuar del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, de esfuerzos legislativos de la UE, y del Facebook Oversight Board. El objetivo es analizar dichas tendencias para resaltar sus consecuencias negativas. La principal contribución del trabajo es evidenciar que estas tendencias resultan en un beneficio únicamente para las plataformas de redes sociales, que ven reforzada su posición para regular la libertad de expresión en internet a través de sus propias reglas privadas y unilaterales y para beneficio de sus intereses comerciales. Como argumentamos en nuestras conclusiones, esto va en detrimento de la libertad de expresión, que se ve sometido a reglas estándar y a una falsa universalización de este derecho.

show abstract

Section: Otros Ejemplos En La Unión Europea: La Directiva De Serviciounclassified

Un estira y afloja: La definición de las reglas para la libre expresión en las plataformas de redes sociales

Presuel

2021

Jurídicas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the past 20 years, the Directive on Electronic Commerce (EC, 2000) has provided the basis for the EU regime for intermediary liability in situations of "mere conduit" (article 12), "caching" (article 13), and hosting (article 14). These articles exempt intermediaries from liability in cases where the users of the platform, network, and so forth infringe the rights of others (Riis & Schwemer, 2019), while article 15 establishes that states shall not impose a general monitoring obligation on providers. The exemption from intermediary liability is conditioned on a) the provider having no actual knowledge of illegal activity or b) the provider, when obtaining such knowledge, acting expeditiously to remove or disable access to the information.…”

Section: The Eu Model -From Limited Liability To Proactive Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, a platform is lifted from liability provided it removes illegal content quickly when notified, and it shall not monitor its users' activities. However, it remains unclear how quickly a platform is expected to react to illegal content to be exempt from liability (Riis & Schwemer, 2019).…”

Section: The Eu Model -From Limited Liability To Proactive Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As part of the increased policy attention towards illegal content -not least on social media platforms -regulation is now introduced that supplements the limited liability regime of the Directive on Electronic Commerce, with expectations of "proactive measures" for user-generated content (Riis & Schwemer, 2019) to make the takedown regime more efficient. In 2017, the European Commission issued a Communication, "Tackling illegal content online", that aimed to establish an "enhanced responsibility of online platforms" (EC, 2017).…”

Section: The Eu Model -From Limited Liability To Proactive Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Private Governance of Freedom of Expression on Social Media Platforms: EU content regulation through the lens of human rights standards

Jørgensen

Zuleta

2020

Nordicom Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For years, social media platforms have been perceived as a democratic gain, facilitating freedom of expression, easy access to a variety of information, and new means of public participation. At the same time, social media have enabled the dissemination of illegal content and incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, fuelling several content regulation initiatives. From the perspective of freedom of expression, this development embraces two challenges: first, private actors govern freedom of expression, without human rights safeguards; second, this privatised governance of human rights is encouraged and legitimised by a broad range of EU policy initiatives. Informed by an analysis of Danish Facebook users’ attitudes toward public debate on Facebook, we pose the question: How do social media companies such as Facebook balance various human rights considerations on their platforms, particularly in relation to freedom of expression? We analyse the abovementioned challenges through a human rights lens, which serves as the analytical framework for this article. Further, we suggest some strategies for moving forward, drawing on recent recommendations from the UN human rights system.

show abstract

“…47 Compare for instance the language in Article 17(8) of the new Copyright Directive ("The application of this Article shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation") to that attached to the co-regulatory regime in the November 2018 AVMSD reform (supra n.9) ("Those measures shall not lead to any ex-ante control measures or upload-filtering of content which do not comply with Article 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC"). Surveying an "emerging tendency of the European lawmaker to encourage the use of proactive filtering mechanisms", see Riis, T. & Schwemer, S. F. (2019), 'Leaving the European Safe Harbor, Sailing Toward Algorithmic Content Regulation', Journal of Internet Law 22(7): 11-21. 48 'Filters Incorporated', EDRi, 9 th April 2019.…”

Section: Revista Publicummentioning

confidence: 99%

A democratic dénouement? The European Union vs terrorist content online | Um desfecho democrático? União Europeia vs conteúdo terrorista online

Robinson

2019

Publicum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the manifold aspects of the draft Terrorist Content Online ('TCO') Regulation which are of clear import for the democratic future of the internet insofar as they will reshape the boundaries of what is acceptable behavior online and set out tools and procedures for deciding what must be (potentially, pre-emptively) excised from the exchanges taking place there. The piece places particular emphasis on the proposal's ramifications for legal certainty and freedom of expression in cyberspace. In doing so, it aims to raise the most salient policy concerns, legal difficulties and technological quandaries which ripple out from the EU legislator's laudable goal of tackling violent and terrorist content online. The article is structured as follows: after a discussion of the foundational concept of "terrorist content" which applies across the board in the draft text (II), we distinguish its headline provisions tightening up service providers' compliance with orders to remove or disable access to terrorist content (III) from those aspects of the proposal which aim to responsibilise providers to act unassisted against terrorist content, including through the hotly-debated use of proactive measures (IV). A few concluding remarks on the future direction of this live file are offered to close (V).

show abstract

Leaving the European Safe Harbor, Sailing Towards Algorithmic Content Regulation

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Un estira y afloja: La definición de las reglas para la libre expresión en las plataformas de redes sociales

Un estira y afloja: La definición de las reglas para la libre expresión en las plataformas de redes sociales

Private Governance of Freedom of Expression on Social Media Platforms: EU content regulation through the lens of human rights standards

A democratic dénouement? The European Union vs terrorist content online | Um desfecho democrático? União Europeia vs conteúdo terrorista online

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About