The digital legislation that we are preparing inside European Institutions is necessarily complex and cannot be explained in only two minutes, so I would like to offer you a more extensive and detailed background on the subject.
Over the last few decades, we have been overwhelmed with the prodigious technological progress on the internet that has influenced our way of living (how we access information, how we communicate and interact with each other, etc.). The line between real-world and virtual reality has been blurred, and the current health crisis has only accelerated the digital transformation. Every technological revolution brings new possibilities and thus has a significant impact on the structure of society. Gutenberg’s printing press helped create a wider literate reading public and contributed to society’s growth of culture and literacy. Radio offered an instant information transition directly to citizens, although it was also abused as Goebbels’ propaganda tool, just as Berlusconi’s ownership of the television network made it possible to change the Italian political landscape.
Every technological revolution has not only brought advantages but is persistently challenged with restraining potential exploitation by various lobbies, and with the implementation of regulations for each new technological progress into our system. Not so rarely in our history have governing parties usurped the propaganda tools to systematically spread false news. Yet the situation here and now is becoming far more bizarre and extremely alarming as the “tools” become remarkably more efficient, while the regulations – or better said the democratic control – evidently cannot keep up with the technological progress of private internet companies. Some technology giants control a large part of our lives and directly threaten the democracy of our societies, which in a way is a paradox, as these networks have enabled a plurality of opinions, the possibility of public expression, and for politicians to directly inform citizens.
Cases like the interference in the last US presidential election, the referendum vote on Britain’s exit from the European Union, the organized spread of false news, and the undermining of trust in the European Union by state actors such as China or Russia must not be forgotten. In the most extreme case of interference, the incitement to violence led to ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, where the military used social media to spread their messages. And also a more recent incident in Ethiopia, where false news and hate speech spread after a musician’s death, leading to violence in which at least 160 people lost their lives. The spread of a message also led to the recent assassination of French teacher Samuel Paty. One of his students’ father published his disapproval of the teacher’s lesson on freedom of speech, which was seen and spread by Islamist extremists culminating in one of them beheading him.
What do all these tragedies have in common? Hatred spread throughout social media. Sadly, these publicised horrific cases are merely extreme forms of consequences. In my opinion, the whole concept of the sole nature of social media or rather the implementation of the “business model” to track users, analysing our data and selling our “personalities” to the highest bidder is completely misguided. The internet has become a global control machine managed by the abuse of personal data on an industrial level and is being propelled by constantly updated advanced algorithms that offer a targeted audience to the advertiser. One very concerning result of this is that the algorithm itself systematically offers fake news, conspiracy theories, or incitement to hatred to those who are more susceptible to it, and mostly abuse the user’s fears or self-image to sell products or services. Needless to say, fake news or disruptive far-right populism is spreading several times faster than verified media information. The key element of this is that every individual is presented with a customized world according to his online interests. Meanwhile, popularisation is spreading, distrust in the profession and independent institutions is increasing, and information manipulation with enormous consequences in the “real world” is present at every turn.
This week, the European Parliament accepted three Digital Services Act reports that address the issues at hand. The European Commission will prepare a legislative proposal in early December, based on our starting points. The main highlights of the reports include requirements for algorithm transparency, labelling of (political) advertising, labelling of misleading and false information, identification of advertisers, and rules for moderating and removing controversial content. Before the European elections, online platforms voluntarily entered into an agreement with the EU for self-regulation under the EU Code of Conduct on Disinformation. Additionally, they are gradually adjusting to the demands and the appeals of legislators and public debates on the subject of more rapid elimination of illegal content. They are adapting their algorithms with the intent to reduce the swift spread of hate speech and false information, and to mark controversial information, harmful conspiracy theories and harmful information, such as QAnon, Holocaust deniers or harmful information to public health. Removal of such is also performed, even if in the past they constantly avoided responsibility and have hidden behind freedom of speech.
But what stays online and what doesn’t, should not be solely in the hands of private corporations, so in the DSA we suggest transparent rules for online content moderation and demand an appeal mechanism option for users and individuals to assert control over the algorithms. The removal of legal content by private corporations in a censor role is inadmissible. It was often the case that social platforms successfully removed the content of ISIS Propaganda in Syria, but due to the imperfections in algorithms, the evidence for crimes against humanity was also erased and the investigators could no longer access them. It is more than difficult to find the right balance between fundamental human freedoms, such as freedom of speech, freedom of reporting, and the right to privacy on the one hand, and protecting people from hate speech, misinformation, and manipulation on the other. And the fact remains that private corporations cannot make decisions on this whilst holding the monopoly over all our data. For the time being, they are carefully keeping the data to themselves for a market monopoly (which is also controversial), but we do not know how authoritarian governments could abuse it for their own interests if they had to disclose user identities to governing structures – and what this would mean for freedom on the Internet. This (more and more increasingly dominant) monopoly over public space must be returned to the people, and they must regain control over their data , have the option of anonymity, and must demand transparency over the individual presentations of the world and the various actors’ attempts of manipulations of an individual.
The DSA is a step in the right direction and is followed by the addition of the Digital Market Act, which will provide the tools to break the market monopoly of some dominating corporations and allow other smaller and medium-sized companies to grow. In other words: to ensure equal opportunities and conditions for competitiveness. Into the bargain, the intent is also to ensure researchers and public institutions access to, and use of, the anonymized data for the public good. Unfortunately, the current structure of the savage online capitalism itself, which prays over our weaknesses and ensures manipulation, stays firm. The same goes for the motives of various actors, including countries straining for geopolitical influence, the private sector for material benefits, and political parties who exploit people’s fear, anger, or disappointment for their benefit – with no moral reservations -by intentionally inciting hatred through national division and imaginary battles with the ghosts from the past. Possible is also the fair taxation of digital giants and the introduction of the digital tax, for which we are waiting on an agreement at the OECD level, although the US is doing everything in its power to ensure that no agreement is reached. Some European countries have already tried to introduce a tax on a national level until they were forced to yield under pressure. Loans for “non-refundable means” borrowed by the EU from member states will have to be paid back, whereas the digital tax would not be a direct burden to EU citizens. There is also the agreement between digital giants and publishing media to invest part of their profits into the quality media content that is regularly published on their platforms. France and Germany are coming close to an agreement, but it would be necessary to introduce statutory stipulations suitable EU-wide.
For too long we have merely observed alarming trends and acted far too late. The current situation will become more and more unbearable in the long term, but we must ask ourselves for what reasons do people tend to reach for simple explanations for their poor living conditions like poverty, rising inequality, abuse of power, and exclusion from society.
Maybe some ideas might seem too utopian or naive. But in the history of humankind, many who have pushed the limits were labelled as naive. In my opinion, the only way is to do everything we can (emphasis on doing and not just talking about it) to create a safe online environment for all people, and to build and preserve democratic boundaries for those holding too much power.
Irena Joveva
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!