European institutions were on Friday immersed in intense negotiations to reach an agreement on the Digital Service Act (DSA) which Brussels hopes will set a global benchmark on how to regulate big tech.
The key piece of legislation aims to hold large tech multinationals accountable for what is published on their platforms.
It primarily targets those collectively known as GAFAM — Google, Apple, Facebook (now Meta), Amazon and Microsoft — although it would also likely impact a handful of other groups such as social network TikTok.
It is expected to force platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to moderate the content they host, either in the field of e-commerce or disinformation.
When the final round of negotiation started this Friday morning between the Commission, Parliament and Council, they were still 16 sticking points.
One of them is how to protect people from “dark patterns”, tricks used on websites and apps that make users do things that they didn’t mean to, like buying or signing up for something.
Negotiators are also expected to launch an emergency mechanism that will constrain platforms to fight disinformation during critical moments such as pandemics or a war.
Another sensitive point of the trialogue is related to the protection of children. The new legislation could go from banning targeted advertisements to obliging platforms such as TikTok to explain their terms in such a way that minors could understand.
An agreement is expected in the coming hours and is eagerly awaited worldwide as it is likely to have ramifications beyond the 27-country bloc.
DSA ‘needs teeth’
Hillary Clinton, a former US Secretary of State and presidential candidate, praised the EU for its work on the DSA, writing on Twitter: “For too long, tech platforms have amplified disinformation and extremism with no accountability. The EU is poised to do something about it.”
“I urge our transatlantic allies to push the Digital Services Act across the finish line and bolster global democracy before it’s too late,” she also said.
Alexandra Geese, a Green MEP and shadow rapporteur in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, stressed ahead of the negotiations that the DSA “needs teeth, it needs to put surveillance advertising and manipulative practices of online platforms in their place.”
“The chances are good that the Digital Services Act will become a constitution for the internet, curbing hate, polarisation and disinformation, strengthening the rights of users and holding online platforms to account as never before. We are starting the big tech revolution with a strong law on digital services in the EU,” she added.
“Sensitive personal data such as religion, skin colour or sexual orientation, as well as data of children and young people, should no longer be allowed to be tracked and used for advertising purposes. The Digital Services Act can be the beginning of a digital spring and the first, decisive step towards more democracy and freedom on the internet,” she argued.
But some fear the DSA could have negative impacts.
Concerns over freedom of expression
“In negotiating the Digital Services Act, EU law-makers balanced tackling disinformation with protecting free speech. The Commission’s last-minute proposal for stricter regulation of tech platforms during crises undermines this balance,” said Zach Meyers, a senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform (CER) think tank.
Platforms have up to now been able to come up with their own strategies to fight disinformation, with varying degrees of success, with the debate centred mostly on how to mitigate the spread of “lawful but awful” content such as Russian propaganda. Most have started to flag whether the information comes from a verified source of information or whether the author is linked in any way to governments.
But now, Meyers explained, “the Commission argues it must be able to direct how platforms respond to crises like the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the Commission wants the power to determine whether there is such a ‘crisis’ itself.”
If it had these powers, the Commission would undoubtedly feel pressured to force large platforms to simply remove pro-Russian ‘fake news’ – similarly to how the Commission banned Russia Today and Sputnik. However, requiring systemic removal of such information would inevitably have to rely on machine-learning tools, which are notoriously inaccurate, fail to have regard to context, and therefore often impact important, genuine content – such as parody and legitimate reporting.
“An emphasis on large-scale removal of harmful material is also likely to prompt users to flee to smaller and less scrupulous platforms. This explains why some online platforms are selective about the types of harmful content they disallow,” he added.
Add Comment