Thema: Digitalisierung & Technologie

Verfassungsrecht für digitale Technologien, KI-Governance, Plattformregulierung, digitale Rechte und verfassungsrechtliche Aspekte des technologischen Wandels. Umfasst digitale Grundrechte, Datenschutz als Verfassungsrecht und verfassungsrechtliche Regulierung neuer Technologien.

Nudging After the Replication Crisis

Not so long ago, nudging seemed to many to be the governance tool of the future. Behavioral interventions, like reminders or information about other people’s behavior, come at low cost, help their addressees make better choices, and do not hamper their addresses’ autonomy. Meanwhile, however, the replication crisis has shaken the behavioral sciences, famous studies have been retracted due to data fraud, and, more generally, the very effectiveness of nudging has been put into question.

30. August 2022

, ,

Die unklare Zukunft der Wissenschaftstransparenz

Müssen Wissenschaftler ihre Ergebnisse frei zugänglich machen? Unter diesem Titel wurde vor fünf Jahren über ein Normenkontrollverfahren in Baden-Württemberg berichtet, auf das damals die deutsche Wissenschaft mit Spannung wartete. Das Interesse an der Frage ist ungebrochen, betrifft sie doch den Kernbereich der Wissenschaftsfreiheit. Nicht umsonst beschäftigt er seit September 2017 auch das Bundesverfassungsgericht, dem das Verfahren zur Entscheidung einer Vorfrage vorgelegt wurde. Bald jährt sich die Vorlage zum fünften Mal. Was seither geschah? Nichts.

22. August 2022

, , ,

Compute and Antitrust

Compute or computing power refers to a software and hardware stack, such as in a data centre or computer, engineered for AI-specific applications. We argue that the antitrust and regulatory literature to date has failed to pay sufficient attention to compute, despite compute being a key input to AI progress and services, the potentially substantial market power of companies in the supply chain, and the advantages of compute as a ‘unit’ of regulation in terms of detection and remedies.

19. August 2022

, ,

Effective Enforceability of EU Competition Law Under Different AI Development Scenarios

This post examines whether competition law can remain effective in prospective AI development scenarios by looking at six variables for AI development: capability of AI systems, speed of development, key inputs, technical architectures, number of actors, and the nature and relationship of these actors. For each of these, we analyse how different scenarios could impact effective enforceability. In some of these scenarios, EU competition law would remain a strong lever of control; in others it could be significantly weakened. We argue that despite challenges to regulators' ability to detect and remedy breaches, in many future scenarios the effective enforceability of EU competition law remains strong.

18. August 2022

,

Extra-Constitutional Commitment Mechanisms

The solution to many public dilemmas requires long-term effort by successive generations. Such situation arises whenever the solution to a public dilemma cannot be implemented instantaneously but is dependent on the continuous effort of future governments (and their citizens). In this post I discuss the problem of securing intergenerational cooperation, focusing on the challenge of designing long-term commitment mechanisms. I will also reflect briefly on the tension between commitment mechanisms and the democratic ideal of citizen sovereignty (allowing each generation to make its own choices).

12. August 2022

, , ,

Narrow Rules are not Enough

With continuing proliferation of increasingly capable AI systems, we will need regulation to address the associated risks. Since our ability to foresee such future risks is very limited, our best bet is to base such regulation on relatively general principles, rather than narrow rules. We think that negative human rights with their existing broad international support could form a suitable foundation both for flexible regulation and for the associated technical solutions.

11. August 2022

, ,

Paths Untaken

If the development of certain technologies, such as advanced, unaligned AI, would be as dangerous as some have suggested, a long-termist legal perspective might advocate a strategy of technological delay—or even restraint—to avoid a default outcome of catastrophe. To many, restraint–a decision to withhold indefinitely from the development, or at least deployment, of the technology–might look implausible. However, history offers a surprising array of cases where strategically promising technologies were delayed, abandoned, or left unbuilt, even though many at the time perceived their development as inevitable.

9. August 2022

, , ,

The Re-Emergence of the Net Neutrality Debate in Europe

The European online space has been subjected to intensive legal reforms in recent years, and the policy and regulatory debates regarding the role and obligations of tech companies in Europe are far from over. With the rumoured Connectivity Infrastructure Act, the European Commission seeks to compel Big Tech actors to financially contribute to telecommunications infrastructure. This initiative risks opening the pandora's box of net neutrality, and potentially endangers the democratic principles of freedom of expression and pluralism.

5. August 2022

, , , ,

The EU’s regulatory push against disinformation

Tech billionaire Elon Musk’s surprise bid to buy Twitter questions the wisdom of the current EU efforts to combat the spread of disinformation, which has relied to a large extend on platforms’ voluntary cooperation. Whether successful or not, it raises serious questions on EU disinformation policy’s reliance on platforms’ discretion to moderate this category of speech. It is likely to put pressure on the carefully constructed web of self- and co-regulatory measures and legislation the European Commission has spun to counter the spread of disinformation.

5. August 2022

, , ,

Challenging Censorship

India’s online censorship laws have, since they were framed, been entirely lacking in transparency, and have consequently shielded the Indian government from any and all form of accountability. A writ petition by Twitter in an Indian High Court hopes to change that. Depending on which way the Courts rule, the fundamental rights of free expression, of due process and of access to the internet of millions of Indians are going to be decided by the end of this case.

2. August 2022

, , , ,