Group items tagged

We often talk about the “online environment.” This metaphorical language makes it seem like the online space looks similar to our offline world. For example, the term “information pollution,” coined by Claire Wardle, is increasingly being used to discuss disinformation online.  

It is even harder to prove direct connections between online platforms and offline harms. This is partly because platforms are not transparent.

Finally, this analogy reminds us that both problems are dispiritingly hard to solve. Two scholars, Whitney Phillips and Ryan Milner, have suggested that our online information problems are ecosystemic, similar to the climate crisis.

In a six-month period from October 2017 to March 20178, 21m sexually explicit pictures, 3.5m graphically violent posts and 2.5m forms of hate speech were removed from its site. These figures help reveal some striking points.

As expected, the data indicates that the problem is getting worse.

For instance, between January and March it was estimated that for every 10,000 messages online, between 22 and 27 contained graphic violence, up from 16 to 19 in the previous three months.

A small group of companies with the largest online presence and high-risk features, which is likely to include Facebook, TikTok, Instagram and Twitter, will be in Category 1, while Category 2 services include platforms that host dating services or pornography and private messaging apps. The Government has said that less than 3% of UK businesses will fall within the scope of the legislation and the vast majority of companies that do will be Category 2 services, the UK government.

New responsibilities arise from these changes.

Greater transparency will disclose whether further regulation is required and make it better targeted, providing specific remedies for clearly identified ills.

If Facebook and others must account in detail to an electoral commission or data protection authority for micro-targeting or “dark” ads, are forbidden from deleting certain relevant data, and must submit to algorithm audits, they will forced to foresee and to try to solve some of the problems which they have been addressing so slowly

Could it be, another wondered, that the flurry of apocalyptic angst reflected the extent to which the Californian Ideology (which held that cyberspace was beyond the reach of the state) had seeped into the souls of even well-intentioned critics?

In reality, the problem we have is not the internet so much as those corporations that ride on it and allow some unacceptable activities to flourish on their platforms

This is what ethicists call “obligation responsibility” and in this country we call a duty of care. I

At the heart of the initiative is a plan for online platforms to “increase the proactive prevention, detection and removal of illegal content inciting hatred, violence and terrorism online.” Significantly, the ideas are presented as “guidelines and principles”. That’s because they are entirely voluntary. Except that the Commission makes it quite clear that if this totally voluntary system is not implemented by companies like Facebook and Google, it will bring in new laws to make them do it on a not-so-voluntary basis. The Commission is quite eager to see swift results from these voluntary efforts, as legislative proposals could already be on the table by May 2018.

But the worst idea, and one that appears multiple times in the latest plans, is the routine and pervasive use of upload filters.

In doing so, they have caused notable collateral damage, especially to fundamental rights.

The EU’s overall objectives are certainly well-intended. However, many concerns remain, for instance:

The DSA should tackle bad players and behaviours regardless of the platform’s size and country of origin. Having a specific regime for “very large online platforms” with additional obligations leaves the door open for rogue players to simply move to smaller digital service providers that are subject to a lighter regime.

To prevent legal uncertainty, the DSA should have a clear scope focusing on illegal content, products and services. The rules should be horizontal and principle-based, and could in a second phase be complemented with more targeted measures (legislative and non-legislative) to tackle specific concerns. 

avoidance of regulation that the Silicon Valley platforms

It hasn’t been a great couple of weeks for the “Don’t Be Evil” company.

The Supreme Court had upheld a lower court ruling requiring Google to delist from its global search results references to a rogue Canadian company that is the subject of an injunction in British Columbia (B.C) f

umber of the other “harms” identified in the White Paper may also constitute breaches of data protection law.