Keyword: Content moderation

“Must-carry”, Special Treatment and Freedom of Expression on Online Platforms: A European Story external link

Kuczerawy, A. & Quintais, J.
2024

Abstract

This paper examines the role of "must-carry" obligations in the regulation of online platforms, arguing that these obligations are better understood as special treatment rules rather than direct analogues of traditional broadcasting regulation. By analysing the development of such rules within the European Union, particularly through the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), the paper explores how these provisions aim to safeguard freedom of expression, ensure access to trustworthy information, enhance media pluralism, and regulate platform behaviour. The analysis extends to national-level laws and court decisions in Germany, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Poland, illustrating how these countries have grappled with similar challenges in applying and contextualizing special treatment rules. Through a detailed examination of these frameworks, the paper critiques the risks of these rules, including their potential to entrench power imbalances, amplify state narratives, and complicate efforts to counter disinformation. Additionally, the paper highlights the broader implications of granting privileged status to legacy media and political actors, questioning whether such measures align with democratic principles and the rule of law. Ultimately, the paper argues that while these rules may offer a response to platform dominance, their implementation risks undermining the equality of speech and shifting the focus of freedom of expression toward a privilege for select groups.

Content moderation, Digital services act, EU law, European Media Freedom Act, must carry, platform regulation

Bibtex

Online publication{nokey, title = {“Must-carry”, Special Treatment and Freedom of Expression on Online Platforms: A European Story}, author = {Kuczerawy, A. and Quintais, J.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5064244}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-12-19}, abstract = {This paper examines the role of \"must-carry\" obligations in the regulation of online platforms, arguing that these obligations are better understood as special treatment rules rather than direct analogues of traditional broadcasting regulation. By analysing the development of such rules within the European Union, particularly through the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), the paper explores how these provisions aim to safeguard freedom of expression, ensure access to trustworthy information, enhance media pluralism, and regulate platform behaviour. The analysis extends to national-level laws and court decisions in Germany, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Poland, illustrating how these countries have grappled with similar challenges in applying and contextualizing special treatment rules. Through a detailed examination of these frameworks, the paper critiques the risks of these rules, including their potential to entrench power imbalances, amplify state narratives, and complicate efforts to counter disinformation. Additionally, the paper highlights the broader implications of granting privileged status to legacy media and political actors, questioning whether such measures align with democratic principles and the rule of law. Ultimately, the paper argues that while these rules may offer a response to platform dominance, their implementation risks undermining the equality of speech and shifting the focus of freedom of expression toward a privilege for select groups.}, keywords = {Content moderation, Digital services act, EU law, European Media Freedom Act, must carry, platform regulation}, }

Generative AI, Copyright and the AI Act (v.2) external link

Quintais, J.
2024

Abstract

Published 1 November 2024. This is a revised and extended version of a paper initially published in August 2024. This paper examines the copyright-relevant rules of the recently published Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act for the EU copyright acquis. The aim of the paper is to provide a critical overview of the relationship between the AI Act and EU copyright law, while highlighting potential gray areas and blind spots for legal interpretation and future policy-making. The paper proceeds as follows. After a short introduction, Section 2 outlines the basic copyright issues of generative AI and the relevant copyright acquis rules that interface with the AI Act. It mentions potential copyright issues with the input or training stage, the model, and outputs. The AI Act rules are mostly relevant for the training of AI models, and the Regulation primarily interfaces with the text and data mining (TDM) exceptions in Articles 3 and 4 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD). Section 3 then briefly explains the AI Act’s structure and core definitions as they pertain to copyright law. Section 4 is the heart of the paper. It covers in some detail the interface between the AI Act and EU copyright law, namely: the clarification that TDM is involved in training AI models (4.1); the outline of the key copyright obligations in the AI Act (4.2); the obligation to put in place policies to respect copyright law, especially regarding TDM opt-outs (4.3); the projected extraterritorial effect of such obligations (4.4); the transparency obligations (4.5); how the AI Act envisions compliance with such obligations (4.6); and potential enforcement and remedies (4.7). Section 5 offers some concluding remarks, focusing on the inadequacy of the current regime to address one of its main concerns: the fair remuneration of authors and performers.

AI Act, Content moderation, Copyright, DSA, Generative AI, text and data mining, Transparency

Bibtex

Working paper{nokey, title = {Generative AI, Copyright and the AI Act (v.2)}, author = {Quintais, J.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4912701}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-11-01}, abstract = {Published 1 November 2024. This is a revised and extended version of a paper initially published in August 2024. This paper examines the copyright-relevant rules of the recently published Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act for the EU copyright acquis. The aim of the paper is to provide a critical overview of the relationship between the AI Act and EU copyright law, while highlighting potential gray areas and blind spots for legal interpretation and future policy-making. The paper proceeds as follows. After a short introduction, Section 2 outlines the basic copyright issues of generative AI and the relevant copyright acquis rules that interface with the AI Act. It mentions potential copyright issues with the input or training stage, the model, and outputs. The AI Act rules are mostly relevant for the training of AI models, and the Regulation primarily interfaces with the text and data mining (TDM) exceptions in Articles 3 and 4 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD). Section 3 then briefly explains the AI Act’s structure and core definitions as they pertain to copyright law. Section 4 is the heart of the paper. It covers in some detail the interface between the AI Act and EU copyright law, namely: the clarification that TDM is involved in training AI models (4.1); the outline of the key copyright obligations in the AI Act (4.2); the obligation to put in place policies to respect copyright law, especially regarding TDM opt-outs (4.3); the projected extraterritorial effect of such obligations (4.4); the transparency obligations (4.5); how the AI Act envisions compliance with such obligations (4.6); and potential enforcement and remedies (4.7). Section 5 offers some concluding remarks, focusing on the inadequacy of the current regime to address one of its main concerns: the fair remuneration of authors and performers.}, keywords = {AI Act, Content moderation, Copyright, DSA, Generative AI, text and data mining, Transparency}, }

What can a media privilege look like? Unpacking three versions in the EMFA download

Drunen, M. van, Papaevangelou, C., Buijs, D. & Fahy, R.
Journal of Media Law, 2024

Abstract

The media privilege has been one of the most controversial aspects of the proposed European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). However, it is important not to assess the drawbacks of the media privilege in isolation, but in relation to the other available alternatives. In this comment, we lay out and critique how the European Parliament and Council build on the Commission’s proposal for a media privilege in the EMFA. We focus on three key questions: how is media content treated differently, who qualifies as media, and who decides who qualifies as media?

Content moderation, Media law, Platforms

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {What can a media privilege look like? Unpacking three versions in the EMFA}, author = {Drunen, M. van and Papaevangelou, C. and Buijs, D. and Fahy, R.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publications/what-can-a-media-privilege-look-like-unpacking-three-versions-in-the-emfa/journalofmedialaw_2024/}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2023.2299097}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-01-31}, journal = {Journal of Media Law}, abstract = {The media privilege has been one of the most controversial aspects of the proposed European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). However, it is important not to assess the drawbacks of the media privilege in isolation, but in relation to the other available alternatives. In this comment, we lay out and critique how the European Parliament and Council build on the Commission’s proposal for a media privilege in the EMFA. We focus on three key questions: how is media content treated differently, who qualifies as media, and who decides who qualifies as media?}, keywords = {Content moderation, Media law, Platforms}, }

How the EU Outsources the Task of Human Rights Protection to Platforms and Users: The Case of UGC Monetization external link

Senftleben, M., Quintais, J. & Meiring, A.
Berkeley Technology Law Journal, vol. 38, iss. : 3, pp: 933-1010, 2024

Abstract

With the shift from the traditional safe harbor for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations, EU copyright law has substantially curtailed the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platforms and the creative industry to take into account human rights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint and redress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identify best practices. These “safety valves” in the legislative package, however, are mere fig leaves. Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of policing content moderation systems is imposed on users who are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design in the EU will thus “conceal” human rights violations instead of bringing them to light. Nonetheless, the DSA rests on the same – highly problematic – approach. Against this background, the paper discusses the weakening – and potential loss – of fundamental freedoms as a result of the departure from the traditional notice-and-takedown approach. Adding a new element to the ongoing debate on content licensing and filtering, the analysis will devote particular attention to the fact that EU law, for the most part, has left untouched the private power of platforms to determine the “house rules” governing the most popular copyright-owner reaction to detected matches between protected works and content uploads: the (algorithmic) monetization of that content. Addressing the “legal vacuum” in the field of content monetization, the analysis explores outsourcing and concealment risks in this unregulated space. Focusing on large-scale platforms for user-generated content, such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, two normative problems come to the fore: (1) the fact that rightholders, when opting for monetization, de facto monetize not only their own rights but also the creative input of users; (2) the fact that user creativity remains unremunerated as long as the monetization option is only available to rightholders. As a result of this configuration, the monetization mechanism disregards users’ right to (intellectual) property and discriminates against user creativity. Against this background, we discuss whether the DSA provisions that seek to ensure transparency of content moderation actions and terms and conditions offer useful sources of information that could empower users. Moreover, we raise the question whether the detailed regulation of platform actions in the DSA may resolve the described human rights dilemmas to some extent.

Artificial intelligence, Content moderation, Copyright, derivative works, discrimination, Freedom of expression, Human rights, liability, proportionality, user-generated content

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {How the EU Outsources the Task of Human Rights Protection to Platforms and Users: The Case of UGC Monetization}, author = {Senftleben, M. and Quintais, J. and Meiring, A.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4421150}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-01-23}, journal = {Berkeley Technology Law Journal}, volume = {38}, issue = {3}, pages = {933-1010}, abstract = {With the shift from the traditional safe harbor for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations, EU copyright law has substantially curtailed the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platforms and the creative industry to take into account human rights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint and redress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identify best practices. These “safety valves” in the legislative package, however, are mere fig leaves. Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of policing content moderation systems is imposed on users who are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design in the EU will thus “conceal” human rights violations instead of bringing them to light. Nonetheless, the DSA rests on the same – highly problematic – approach. Against this background, the paper discusses the weakening – and potential loss – of fundamental freedoms as a result of the departure from the traditional notice-and-takedown approach. Adding a new element to the ongoing debate on content licensing and filtering, the analysis will devote particular attention to the fact that EU law, for the most part, has left untouched the private power of platforms to determine the “house rules” governing the most popular copyright-owner reaction to detected matches between protected works and content uploads: the (algorithmic) monetization of that content. Addressing the “legal vacuum” in the field of content monetization, the analysis explores outsourcing and concealment risks in this unregulated space. Focusing on large-scale platforms for user-generated content, such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, two normative problems come to the fore: (1) the fact that rightholders, when opting for monetization, de facto monetize not only their own rights but also the creative input of users; (2) the fact that user creativity remains unremunerated as long as the monetization option is only available to rightholders. As a result of this configuration, the monetization mechanism disregards users’ right to (intellectual) property and discriminates against user creativity. Against this background, we discuss whether the DSA provisions that seek to ensure transparency of content moderation actions and terms and conditions offer useful sources of information that could empower users. Moreover, we raise the question whether the detailed regulation of platform actions in the DSA may resolve the described human rights dilemmas to some extent.}, keywords = {Artificial intelligence, Content moderation, Copyright, derivative works, discrimination, Freedom of expression, Human rights, liability, proportionality, user-generated content}, }

Copyright Content Moderation in the European Union: State of the Art, Ways Forward and Policy Recommendations external link

Quintais, J., Katzenbach, C., Schwemer, S., Dergacheva, D., Riis, T., Mezei, P., Harkai, I. & Magalhães, J.C.
IIC, vol. 55, pp: 157-177, 2024

Abstract

This Opinion describes and summarises the results of the interdisciplinary research carried out by the authors during the course of a three-year project on intermediaries’ practices regarding copyright content moderation. This research includes the mapping of the EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices regarding copyright content moderation, the evaluation and measuring of the impact of moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity, and a set of policy recommendations. Our recommendations touch on the following topics: the definition of “online content-sharing service provider”; the recognition and operationalisation of user rights; the complementary nature of complaint and redress safeguards; the scope of permissible preventive filtering; the clarification of the relationship between Art. 17 of the new Copyright Directive and the Digital Services Act; monetisation and restrictive content moderation actions; recommender systems and copyright content moderation; transparency and data access for researchers; trade secret protection and transparency of content moderation systems; the relationship between the copyright acquis, the Digital Services Act and the upcoming Artificial Intelligence Act; and human competences in copyright content moderation.

Content moderation, Copyright, Digital services act, Digital Single Market, intermediaries, Platforms

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Copyright Content Moderation in the European Union: State of the Art, Ways Forward and Policy Recommendations}, author = {Quintais, J. and Katzenbach, C. and Schwemer, S. and Dergacheva, D. and Riis, T. and Mezei, P. and Harkai, I. and Magalhães, J.C.}, url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-023-01409-5}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01409-5}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-01-01}, journal = {IIC}, volume = {55}, pages = {157-177}, abstract = {This Opinion describes and summarises the results of the interdisciplinary research carried out by the authors during the course of a three-year project on intermediaries’ practices regarding copyright content moderation. This research includes the mapping of the EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices regarding copyright content moderation, the evaluation and measuring of the impact of moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity, and a set of policy recommendations. Our recommendations touch on the following topics: the definition of “online content-sharing service provider”; the recognition and operationalisation of user rights; the complementary nature of complaint and redress safeguards; the scope of permissible preventive filtering; the clarification of the relationship between Art. 17 of the new Copyright Directive and the Digital Services Act; monetisation and restrictive content moderation actions; recommender systems and copyright content moderation; transparency and data access for researchers; trade secret protection and transparency of content moderation systems; the relationship between the copyright acquis, the Digital Services Act and the upcoming Artificial Intelligence Act; and human competences in copyright content moderation.}, keywords = {Content moderation, Copyright, Digital services act, Digital Single Market, intermediaries, Platforms}, }

Using Terms and Conditions to apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation

Quintais, J., Appelman, N. & Fahy, R.
German Law Journal, 2023

Abstract

Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platformʼs terms and conditions (T&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards. If this is possible Article 14 may fulfil its revolutionary potential.

Content moderation, Digital services act, Freedom of expression, Online platforms, platform regulation, terms and conditions

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Using Terms and Conditions to apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation}, author = {Quintais, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R.}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.53}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-07-11}, journal = {German Law Journal}, abstract = {Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platformʼs terms and conditions (T&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards. If this is possible Article 14 may fulfil its revolutionary potential.}, keywords = {Content moderation, Digital services act, Freedom of expression, Online platforms, platform regulation, terms and conditions}, }

Outsourcing Human Rights Obligations and Concealing Human Rights Deficits: The Example of Monetizing User-Generated Content Under the CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act external link

Senftleben, M., Quintais, J. & Meiring, A.

Abstract

With the shift from the traditional safe harbor for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations, EU copyright law has substantially curtailed the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platforms and the creative industry to take into account human rights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint and redress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identify best practices. These “safety valves” in the legislative package, however, are mere fig leaves. Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of policing content moderation systems is imposed on users who are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design in the EU will thus “conceal” human rights violations instead of bringing them to light. Nonetheless, the DSA rests on the same – highly problematic – approach. Against this background, the paper discusses the weakening – and potential loss – of fundamental freedoms as a result of the departure from the traditional notice-and-takedown approach. Adding a new element to the ongoing debate on content licensing and filtering, the analysis will devote particular attention to the fact that EU law, for the most part, has left untouched the private power of platforms to determine the “house rules” governing the most popular copyright-owner reaction to detected matches between protected works and content uploads: the (algorithmic) monetization of that content. Addressing the “legal vacuum” in the field of content monetization, the analysis explores outsourcing and concealment risks in this unregulated space. Focusing on large-scale platforms for user-generated content, such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, two normative problems come to the fore: (1) the fact that rightholders, when opting for monetization, de facto monetize not only their own rights but also the creative input of users; (2) the fact that user creativity remains unremunerated as long as the monetization option is only available to rightholders. As a result of this configuration, the monetization mechanism disregards users’ right to (intellectual) property and discriminates against user creativity. Against this background, we discuss whether the DSA provisions that seek to ensure transparency of content moderation actions and terms and conditions offer useful sources of information that could empower users. Moreover, we raise the question whether the detailed regulation of platform actions in the DSA may resolve the described human rights dilemmas to some extent.

Artificial intelligence, Content moderation, Copyright, derivative works, discrimination, Freedom of expression, Human rights, liability, user-generated content

Bibtex

Online publication{nokey, title = {Outsourcing Human Rights Obligations and Concealing Human Rights Deficits: The Example of Monetizing User-Generated Content Under the CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act}, author = {Senftleben, M. and Quintais, J. and Meiring, A.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4421150}, year = {}, date = {DATE ERROR: pub_date = }, abstract = {With the shift from the traditional safe harbor for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations, EU copyright law has substantially curtailed the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platforms and the creative industry to take into account human rights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint and redress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identify best practices. These “safety valves” in the legislative package, however, are mere fig leaves. Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of policing content moderation systems is imposed on users who are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design in the EU will thus “conceal” human rights violations instead of bringing them to light. Nonetheless, the DSA rests on the same – highly problematic – approach. Against this background, the paper discusses the weakening – and potential loss – of fundamental freedoms as a result of the departure from the traditional notice-and-takedown approach. Adding a new element to the ongoing debate on content licensing and filtering, the analysis will devote particular attention to the fact that EU law, for the most part, has left untouched the private power of platforms to determine the “house rules” governing the most popular copyright-owner reaction to detected matches between protected works and content uploads: the (algorithmic) monetization of that content. Addressing the “legal vacuum” in the field of content monetization, the analysis explores outsourcing and concealment risks in this unregulated space. Focusing on large-scale platforms for user-generated content, such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, two normative problems come to the fore: (1) the fact that rightholders, when opting for monetization, de facto monetize not only their own rights but also the creative input of users; (2) the fact that user creativity remains unremunerated as long as the monetization option is only available to rightholders. As a result of this configuration, the monetization mechanism disregards users’ right to (intellectual) property and discriminates against user creativity. Against this background, we discuss whether the DSA provisions that seek to ensure transparency of content moderation actions and terms and conditions offer useful sources of information that could empower users. Moreover, we raise the question whether the detailed regulation of platform actions in the DSA may resolve the described human rights dilemmas to some extent.}, keywords = {Artificial intelligence, Content moderation, Copyright, derivative works, discrimination, Freedom of expression, Human rights, liability, user-generated content}, }

An end to shadow banning? Transparency rights in the Digital Services Act between content moderation and curation download

Leerssen, P.
Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 48, 2023

Abstract

This paper offers a legal perspective on the phenomenon of shadow banning: content moderation sanctions which are undetectable to those affected. Drawing on recent social science research, it connects current concerns about shadow banning to novel visibility management techniques in content moderation, such as delisting and demotion. Conventional moderation techniques such as outright content removal or account suspension can be observed by those affected, but these new visibility often cannot. This lends newfound significance to the legal question of moderation transparency rights. The EU Digital Services Act (DSA) is analysed in this light, as the first major legislation to regulate transparency of visibility remedies. In effect, its due process framework prohibits shadow banning with only limited exceptions. In doing so, the DSA surfaces tensions between two competing models for content moderation: as rule-bound administration or as adversarial security conflict. I discuss possible interpretations and trade-offs for this regime, and then turn to a more fundamental problem: how to define visibility reduction as a category of content moderation actions. The concept of visibility reduction or ‘demotions’ is central to both the shadow banning imaginary and to the DSA's safeguards, but its meaning is far from straightforward. Responding to claims that demotion is entirely relative, and therefore not actionable as a category of content moderation sanctions, I show how visibility reduction can still be regulated when defined as ex post adjustments to engagement-based relevance scores. Still, regulating demotion in this way will not cover all exercises of ranking power, since it manifests not only in individual cases of moderation but also through structural acts of content curation; not just by reducing visibility, but by producing visibility.

content curation, Content moderation, DSA, Online platforms, Transparency

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {An end to shadow banning? Transparency rights in the Digital Services Act between content moderation and curation}, author = {Leerssen, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publications/comment-an-end-to-shadow-banning-transparency-rights-in-the-digital-services-act-between-content-moderation-and-curation/endtoshadowbanning/}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105790}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-04-11}, journal = {Computer Law & Security Review}, volume = {48}, pages = {}, abstract = {This paper offers a legal perspective on the phenomenon of shadow banning: content moderation sanctions which are undetectable to those affected. Drawing on recent social science research, it connects current concerns about shadow banning to novel visibility management techniques in content moderation, such as delisting and demotion. Conventional moderation techniques such as outright content removal or account suspension can be observed by those affected, but these new visibility often cannot. This lends newfound significance to the legal question of moderation transparency rights. The EU Digital Services Act (DSA) is analysed in this light, as the first major legislation to regulate transparency of visibility remedies. In effect, its due process framework prohibits shadow banning with only limited exceptions. In doing so, the DSA surfaces tensions between two competing models for content moderation: as rule-bound administration or as adversarial security conflict. I discuss possible interpretations and trade-offs for this regime, and then turn to a more fundamental problem: how to define visibility reduction as a category of content moderation actions. The concept of visibility reduction or ‘demotions’ is central to both the shadow banning imaginary and to the DSA\'s safeguards, but its meaning is far from straightforward. Responding to claims that demotion is entirely relative, and therefore not actionable as a category of content moderation sanctions, I show how visibility reduction can still be regulated when defined as ex post adjustments to engagement-based relevance scores. Still, regulating demotion in this way will not cover all exercises of ranking power, since it manifests not only in individual cases of moderation but also through structural acts of content curation; not just by reducing visibility, but by producing visibility.}, keywords = {content curation, Content moderation, DSA, Online platforms, Transparency}, }

Copyright Content Moderation in the EU: Conclusions and Recommendations download

Quintais, J., Katzenbach, C., Schwemer, S., Dergacheva, D., Riis, T., Mezei, P. & Harkai, I.
2023

Abstract

This report is a deliverable in the reCreating Europe project. The report describes and summarizes the results of our research on the mapping of the EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices on copyright content moderation and removal. In particular, this report summarizes the results of our previous deliverables and tasks, namely: (1) our Final Report on mapping of EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices on copyright content moderation and removal; and (2) our Final Evaluation and Measuring Report - impact of moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity. Our previous reports contain a detailed description of the legal and empirical methodology underpinning our research and findings. This report focuses on bringing together these findings in a concise format and advancing policy recommendations.

Content moderation, Copyright, Digital services act, Digital Single Market, intermediaries, Online platforms, terms and conditions

Bibtex

Report{nokey, title = {Copyright Content Moderation in the EU: Conclusions and Recommendations}, author = {Quintais, J. and Katzenbach, C. and Schwemer, S. and Dergacheva, D. and Riis, T. and Mezei, P. and Harkai, I.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publications/copyright-content-moderation-in-the-eu-conclusions-and-recommendations/ssrn-id4403423/}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-03-30}, abstract = {This report is a deliverable in the reCreating Europe project. The report describes and summarizes the results of our research on the mapping of the EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices on copyright content moderation and removal. In particular, this report summarizes the results of our previous deliverables and tasks, namely: (1) our Final Report on mapping of EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices on copyright content moderation and removal; and (2) our Final Evaluation and Measuring Report - impact of moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity. Our previous reports contain a detailed description of the legal and empirical methodology underpinning our research and findings. This report focuses on bringing together these findings in a concise format and advancing policy recommendations.}, keywords = {Content moderation, Copyright, Digital services act, Digital Single Market, intermediaries, Online platforms, terms and conditions}, }

Impact of content moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity external link

Schwemer, S., Katzenbach, C., Dergacheva, D., Riis, T. & Quintais, J.
2023

Abstract

This Report presents the results of research carried out as part of Work Package 6 “Intermediaries: Copyright Content Moderation and Removal at Scale in the Digital Single Market: What Impact on Access to Culture?” of the project “ReCreating Europe”, particularly on Tasks 6.3 (Evaluating Legal Frameworks on the Different Levels (EU vs. national, public vs. private) and 6.4 (Measuring the impact of moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity). This work centers on a normative analysis of the existing public and private legal frameworks with regard to intermediaries and cultural diversity, and on the actual impact on intermediaries’ content moderation on diversity.

Content moderation, Copyright, Digital services act, Digital Single Market, intermediaries, Online platforms, terms and conditions

Bibtex

Report{nokey, title = {Impact of content moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity}, author = {Schwemer, S. and Katzenbach, C. and Dergacheva, D. and Riis, T. and Quintais, J.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4380345}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-03-23}, abstract = {This Report presents the results of research carried out as part of Work Package 6 “Intermediaries: Copyright Content Moderation and Removal at Scale in the Digital Single Market: What Impact on Access to Culture?” of the project “ReCreating Europe”, particularly on Tasks 6.3 (Evaluating Legal Frameworks on the Different Levels (EU vs. national, public vs. private) and 6.4 (Measuring the impact of moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity). This work centers on a normative analysis of the existing public and private legal frameworks with regard to intermediaries and cultural diversity, and on the actual impact on intermediaries’ content moderation on diversity.}, keywords = {Content moderation, Copyright, Digital services act, Digital Single Market, intermediaries, Online platforms, terms and conditions}, }