Journalism on trial and the right to be forgotten

New rulings in Hurbain and Biancardi now permit complainants to address their "right to be forgotten" requests directly to the primary publisher. Journalists and the press, particularly the local press, play a fundamental role in democratic society, but they are already in a precarious situation, and the use of privacy to debilitate them also has a negative impact on local democracy. Hurbain has now been scheduled for a hearing before the Grand Chamber on 9 March 2022. It will have the opportunity to consider whether interference with the press was actually necessary in that case and, by implication, in Biancardi, and to restore the balance between privacy and freedom of expression under the right to be forgotten.

The EU’s »Ban« of RT and Sputnik

Denouncing Russian authorities‘ “muzzling“ of independent media and reiterating its support for media freedom and pluralism, the European Union banned two Russian media outlets in March 2022. This apparent contradiction between a statement of principle and concrete action can be resolved. While the ban can be legally justified as a measure designed to suppress “propaganda for war”, European institutions should not try to justify it by pointing to these outlets’ track record of “disinformation” or simply “propaganda”. To address legitimate questions of double standards that will come up in the wake of the inevitable whataboutism, it should be stressed that the Union’s measures differ decisively from any authoritarian censorship by virtue of the Union’s character as a community of law.

It’s Not Propaganda If It’s True

The first casualty of war is the truth. Putin’s reasons for the invasion, like his claims of genocide in Donbas, are abstruse and lack any basis in reality. Rather than addressing the West, this national propaganda is meant to convince the Russian people of the necessity of war. Is there a possibility to correct misinformation by communicating directly to the Russian people in Russian?

Kette ins nichts?

Noch immer sind deutscher und europäischer Gesetzgeber dabei, die digitale Plattformökonomie juristisch einzuhegen. Im Umgang mit der Blockchain besteht nun die Gefahr, dass sich das alte Muster aus blauäugiger Begeisterung mit anschließendem Erstaunen wiederholt. Sie müssen aber nicht nur zivilrechtlich dogmatisiert, sondern auch öffentlich-rechtlich reguliert werden. Es drohen sonst Gefahren für den Rechtsschutz im digitalen Raum, den man gerade zu zivilisieren begonnen hat.

Rethinking Rights in Social Media Governance

In the context of the broader ‘techlash’ against the power and exploitative practices of major platforms, EU lawmakers are increasingly emphasising ‘European values’ and fundamental rights protection. But relying only on human rights to guide both social media law and academic criticism thereof is excluding other normative perspectives that place greater emphasis on collective and social interests. This is deeply limiting – especially for critical scholarship and activism that calls for the law to redress structural inequality.

The DSA’s Industrial Model for Content Moderation

I expect that in many real-world cases, the process prescribed by the DSA will waste resources that could better be spent elsewhere, and burden smaller platforms to a degree that effectively sacrifices competition and pluralism goals in the name of content regulation. There is a difference between procedural rules that legitimately protect fundamental rights and the exhaustive processes that might exist in a hyper-rationalized, industrial model of content moderation. The line between the two is not always clear. But I think the DSA often crosses it.

The next step towards auditing intermediaries

The lack of transparency of digital platforms is a well-known problem that has wide societal implications. There is now an extraordinary opportunity to establish legally mandated criteria for meaningful transparency for online platforms in the proposed EU Digital Services Act (DSA). However, their success will depend on the strength of oversight mechanisms which need to be accompanied by sufficient access to data. Hence, we propose creating an auditing intermediary to assure the effectiveness of such oversight.

»Bekannt aus Funk und Fernsehen, hier aber privat.«

Der WDR plant eine „Dienstanweisung zum Umgang mit sozialen Medien“. Sie sollte sich in geleakter Fassung nicht nur auf die dienstlichen Accounts der Rundfunkanstalt, sondern auch auf die privaten Accounts ihrer Mitarbeitenden erstrecken, deren Agieren in den sozialen Netzwerken weitgehend regulieren und Verstöße empfindlich sanktionieren. Diese Pläne scheinen nun vom Tisch zu sein, rechtlich haltbar sind sie jedenfalls nicht. Sollte der Entwurf doch noch in dieser Form verabschiedet werden, kann den Betroffenen vollauf geraten werden, die Gerichte zu konsultieren.

Die Moderation von extremistischen Inhalten ist fehleranfällig und verursacht reale Schäden

Maßnahmen, die die Möglichkeiten terroristischer Gruppen, sich zu organisieren, zu rekrutieren und aufzuwiegeln einschränken sollen, wurden in den letzten Jahren ausgeweitet und führen häufig dazu, dass nicht nur extremistische Äußerungen, sondern auch Menschenrechtsdokumente, Gegenrede und Kunst gelöscht werden. In allen Bereichen der Moderation kommt es zu Fehlern, unabhängig davon, ob die Moderation von Menschen, künstlicher Intelligenz oder einer Kombination aus beidem durchgeführt werden.

When Your Own Spyware Hits Home

A newspaper report from January 18, 2022, revealed that the Israeli police has been using a spy software to spy on its own citizens. This affair illustrates how existing Israeli privacy law is inadequate for dealing with the types of privacy violations enabled by new technologies. But the ease with which these technologies are used also speaks volumes about the militarization of Israeli society.