Session Chair: Suay Melisa Özkula
Presentation 1
Gauging platform observability under the EU’s Digital Services Act
Charis Papaevangelou, Fabio Votta
University of Amsterdam, Netherlands, The
The increasing reliance on automated processes for content moderation, driven by regulatory pressures and the imperatives of advertising-based business models, has raised critical issues, especially as regards their effectiveness. This contribution examines the implications of AI-driven content moderation within the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) framework, focusing on Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs). It investigates the extent to which insights on automated content moderation across the EU can be discerned from the DSA’s Statement of Reasons (SoRs) database. By analysing content moderation practices across eight VLOPs over four months, using data from the SoRs submissions and transparency reports, this study aims to assess the relationship between automation and countries, exploring disparities in moderation.
Findings indicate a predominance of EU or EEA-level moderation, with variations in the adoption of automation and manual processes across platforms. The study highlights discrepancies in responsiveness across countries and questions the feasibility of swift content moderation, as often required by policymakers. This underscores the critical role of transparency in fostering platform observability, that is a dynamic process to understanding the socio-technical affordances of digital platforms in a way that enables accountability.
However, we also identify the limitations and inconsistencies within the SoRs database and transparency reports. This suggests that, while the DSA mandates a degree of transparency, it may not suffice for comprehensive observability or understanding of content governance practices. In conclusion, the study offers insights into the operational, legal, and ethical dimensions of AI-driven content moderation, contributing to discussions on democratic accountability and platform governance.
Presentation 2
Platforms on trial: Mapping the Facebook Files/Papers controversy
Matías Valderrama Barragán
Centre for Interdisciplinary Methodologies, University of Warwick, United Kingdom
Big Tech has been involved in numerous platform controversies in recent years. Data leaks, whistleblowers, and social experiments have raised alarms about platforms dubbed toxic and unaccountable power and, more broadly, about the increasing crisis of accountability in digital societies (Cooper et al., 2022; Khan, 2018; Marres, 2021). In the intersection of digital sociology, media studies, and STS, this research explores how different actors in journalism, activism, politics, and research make and unmake connections between social media platforms and societal harms. The study focuses on mapping a specific platform controversy: the Facebook Files/Papers, a leak in 2021 of internal documents from Meta by the former employee Frances Haugen. The disclosures partially exposed what Meta knew about the consequences of its interface designs, data, and algorithms (Hendrix, 2021; Horwitz, 2021). By combining digital and ethnographic methods, I am following the disclosures across different media settings to analyse how the disclosures were made public and which actors, issues, and framings gained prominence during the controversy. As I will show, critics promoted a ‘strategic causalism’ to solidify the connection between Meta platforms and specific societal harms, countered by Meta's 'strategic ambiguity' to undermine such claims. This production of ambiguity would be crucial for platforms' power and the intended dispersion of their responsibility. Moreover, some actors and harms became more salient than others in a very US and EU-centric theatre of accountability. This will allow us to understand better the displacements and asymmetries that occur when platforms are put on trial.
Presentation 3
ABUSE OF ECONOMIC POWER AND DOMINANT POSITION: UNFAIR PLAY BY DIGITAL PLATFORMS ON “FAKE NEWS BILL” DISCUSSIONS IN BRAZIL
Rose Marie Santini, Bruno Mattos, Débora Salles, Marcela Canavarro
Netlab UFRJ, Brazil
In Brazil, Google and Meta advertised and ran ads against Bill 2630 (Fake News Bill) but in an opaque way and circumventing their own terms of use. We gathered evidence that Google has been presenting biased search results for users who search for terms related to the bill, implying that searches are for “PL da Censura” (Censorship Bill), which is the name given by the far-right against the regulation of platforms, and not by the official name “PL 2630” or the name used by the press “PL das Fake News” (Fake News Bill). This could constitute an abuse of economic power on the eve of the bill's vote by trying to impact public opinion and the votes of parliamentarians. Platforms are using all possible resources to prevent the approval of Bill 2630 because what is at stake are the billions raised with digital advertising that currently do not have any rules, restrictions or transparency obligations, leaving advertisers and consumers vulnerable to their economic interests. Withal, Big techs managed to maintain the regulatory asymmetry that exists in the market and, therefore, maintain their competitive advantages over other media that also rely on advertising. These different strategies suggest that Google and Meta have been taking advantage of their leadership position in the search market to propagate its ideas and negatively influence users' perception of the bill in favor of its commercial interests, which may account for an abuse of economic power.
Presentation 4
Between the Cracks: Blind spots in the EU’s efforts to regulate platform opinion power and digital media concentration
Theresa Josephine Seipp(1), Natali Helberger(2), Claes De Vreese(3), Jef Ausloos(4)
1: University of Amsterdam, Netherlands, The; 2: University of Amsterdam, Netherlands, The; 3: University of Amsterdam, Netherlands, The; 4: University of Amsterdam, Netherlands, The
This paper examines the European Union's regulatory strategies, focusing on the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), to tackle the challenges arising from the increasing concentration of power and the influence exerted by platforms within digital media ecosystems. It scrutinises the pertinent regulations and pinpoints the gaps in effectively mitigating the risks of monopolisation and concentration that contribute to the decline of media pluralism and endanger independent and local journalism. The primary oversight concerns the escalating involvement of platforms as digital infrastructure and AI providers, which amplifies their economic and political power over the digital media landscapes. Despite the intentions behind current regulations, such as the EMFA, Digital Services Act (DSA), and Digital Markets Act (DMA), they fall short in fully addressing these threats and in promoting a sustainable and pluralistic digital news industry.
