institutional

News from Across the Sea #6

News from Across the Sea 6: Welcome to the sixth installment of our bimonthly newsletter on the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA)! In this issue, we’ll discuss the agenda for protecting minors online

By Nicolás Zara

News from Across the Sea #6:

Welcome to the sixth issue of our bimonthly newsletter on the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA)! In this issue, we’ll cover the agenda for protecting minors online, tensions between freedom of expression and democracy in Europe, the European Union’s new strategy for international engagement in technology, and new retaliatory measures by the U.S. government against foreign officials. We’ll also review new activities and publications from CELE.

Online child protection dominates the agenda:

The European Commission issued—and submitted for consultation—draft guidelines for the protection of minors online under the DSA. CELE contributed to an earlier stage of the process. In parallel with this action by the Commission, the European Digital Services Board launched a coordinated effort to adopt measures at the national level to protect minors from pornographic websites that are not classified as VLOPs and that, consequently, fall under the jurisdiction of national authorities with regard to monitoring their compliance with the DSA. All of this is taking place against a backdrop in which several EU countries are exerting pressure—some in very vehemently– to limit children’s use of social media.

Disinformation, Foreign Interference, and Democracy:

In May, CELE participated in the European Commission’s call for consultation regarding the European Democracy Shield. The initiative aims to protect democracy and the rule of law in Europe, primarily against the threat of foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI, an acronym for Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference). In our response, we raised some criticisms and expressed our concerns about the vagueness of the concept of FIMI—something we had already pointed out here—its unsuitability as a theoretical framework for distinguishing acceptable from unacceptable discourse, and the growing use of war metaphors to justify state interventions regarding the content of online expression.

The European Union’s New International Digital Strategy:

In June, the European Commission and the European External Action Service launched the new European International Digital Strategy. Among its objectives, the Strategy aims to expand the Union’s international ties in the area of digital cooperation and to strengthen global digital governance. To this end, Europe intends to “continue promoting its values-based approach to digital governance and digital standards, with the aim of shaping a global digital transformation that is people-centered, trustworthy, and respectful of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” It seeks to “become a driving force for responsibly guided technological progress on the global stage.” Specifically, the Strategy includes specific actions regarding FIMI to “better protect citizens against foreign disinformation and interference campaigns (…) or other social risks arising from online platforms.” It highlights the importance of this aspect for “candidate countries [seeking to join the European Union], potential candidates, and neighboring countries, given their particular vulnerability to disinformation and foreign interference.” Specifically, it seeks to “[p]romote resilience and technological awareness against attacks involving foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI); expose the perpetrators; and increase the costs of their actions.” It also includes concrete actions regarding the regulatory export of its Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA). Thus, it proposes to “continue promoting its regulatory approach and underlying principles bilaterally and multilaterally, and share its experience in implementing them,” as well as “organize regional events with international organizations, lawmakers, regulators, and civil society from third countries to promote freedom of expression and online [safety].” Europe’s expansionist approach to regulation is, of course, nothing new. At CELE, we have critically analyzed the so-called “Brussels Effect” of the DSA in Latin America in this publication and—in greater depth—in this paper.

CELE in Europe:

CELE participated in the third edition of the EU Rights & Risks Forum, co-organized by the Global Network Initiative (GNI) and the Digital Trust and Safety Partnership (DTSP). CELE has participated in every iteration of this event, which brings together companies regulated by the DSA, civil society organizations, and academics dedicated to studying the topic. This year’s event took place on June 3 and 4 in Brussels. Nicolás Zara, a researcher at CELE, participated in the opening panel on the second day of the event, titled “Enabling deeper shared learning and more rights-based assessments,” where—in line with the Center’s recent publication—he spoke about the need to interpret the open-ended provisions of the regulation in a manner as closely aligned as possible with international and European human rights standards. In addition, she pointed to shortcomings in companies’ risk mitigation reports and to limitations on researchers’ access to data as two barriers that prevent a deeper understanding—and, consequently, better regulation—of the European digital information ecosystem. On June 3, CELE also participated in the event “Centering the Protection of Human Rights in Online Risk Regulation”. On that occasion, participants in the EU Rights & Risks Forum were joined by national regulators, namely: the European Commission, the UK Office of Communications (OFCOM), and the Irish Media Commission.

New Publication:

We are pleased to announce that our new paper “Reclaiming Human Rights for Platform Governance: Proposals for Restoring Their Centrality in the Era of Risks” has been accepted for publication in the conference proceedings of the fourth edition of the European Workshop on Algorithmic Fairness. The paper builds on the conclusions of our previous work “Are Risks the New Rights? The Perils of Risk-based Approaches to Speech Regulation”, and proposes alternatives—specifically regarding the application and implementation of the DSA—to address some of the design flaws identified in that paper. In particular, it proposes adopting a working definition of “systemic risks,” clarifying and narrowing the scope of the individual risks identified, interpreting them in light of international human rights standards, taking the principle of proportionality seriously, and bringing the State to the forefront as a potential source of risks to human rights.

The United States Announces Visa Restrictions for Foreign Officials:

In line with the geopolitical tensions we described in our last post, in late May, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a new policy restricting visas for foreign officials “responsible for censoring freedom of expression in the United States.” He argued that it is “unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants against U.S. citizens or residents for social media posts on U.S. platforms while they are physically on U.S. soil” and that “they demand that U.S. technology platforms adopt global content moderation policies or engage in censorship activities that exceed their authority and extend to the United States.” It is unclear exactly who might be affected by this policy, but the broad terms in which it is phrased and the behavior of the U.S. administration seem to indicate that it could include a wide range of officials from the EU and other countries, such as Brazil. For now, the announcement has not resulted in any specific regulations. On the other hand, it is worth noting that citizens of most European Union countries do not require a visa to enter the United States.

What Are We Reading?

  • Colleagues at the Centre for Communications Governance (CCG) at the University of Delhi Law School released this comprehensive and in-depth report on the challenges and opportunities for the Global South arising from the new discussions surrounding platform transparency under the DSA.
  • In this new paper, which cites two CELE papers, Rachel Griffin critically analyzes the political implications of framing the diverse range of issues facing the field of platform regulation as risks that must be managed.
  • This Oversight Board report analyzes the first round of risk mitigation reports submitted by major platforms under the DSA. It does so based on the conclusions of the CELE’s work that human rights—particularly freedom of expression—must be at the center of risk assessments in order to protect freedom of expression, rather than serving as mechanisms to restrict it. Thank you very much for reading this far; we’ll see you again soon. Until next time!