Browsing by Subject "Freedom of Expression"

This research is focused on how effective the “right to contest” enshrined in recital 44 of the Digital Services Act is at protecting freedom of expression in online environments, namely, on social media platforms. The Digital Services Act is a proposal for a Regulation by the European Union, designed to harmonize certain aspects of internal market and strengthen the rights of individuals online. Social media platforms, especially those owned by the “Big Tech” companies, have become the center of public discourse. This centralization of public discourse leaves it vulnerable to exploitation by the tech companies. A string of recent events, culminating in the banning of the 45th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, from Twitter and Facebook, have increased the intensity and volume of debates regarding the role of social media platforms and companies behind them in today’s society. As a result, these platforms find themselves under pressure from various stakeholders. Online platforms have a whole arsenal of tools to limit users, from shadow bans and labelling to de-platforming and demonetization. Moreover, platforms do not seem to have consistent rules regarding content moderation, which further diminishes certainty for all stakeholders involved: the users, the shareholders and state actors. The research aims to find if and how the Regulation tackles issues of social media platform operation. The research is guided by the following research question: does the “right to contest” enshrined in recital 44 and further in the Digital Services Act provide an adequate measure to foster freedom of expression online? The paper consists of the introduction, six parts of the main body and the conclusion. The first part is about history of web services, in which the paper discusses a shift in mentality towards cyber space with rights and responsibilities. The second part briefly touches upon basic challenges of platform governance, discussing issues of jurisdiction and enforcement. The third part describes the risks for society when significant power is concentrated in the hands of “Big Tech” companies. The fourth part focuses on social media platforms, the different ways they exploit users and possible efforts which can be undertaken to limit their negative influence. The fifth chapter is about freedom of expression online, its peculiarities, the practice thereof and reasons to safeguard it. Chapter six dives into detailed analysis of the “right to contest” with provisions which directly or indirectly affect freedom of expression online. The conclusion summarizes the positive and the negative points of the Regulation as regards freedom of expression and other relevant points. The research found that the Digital Services Act is insufficient at fostering freedom of expression online due to lack of provisions explicitly dedicated to safeguarding freedom of expression, in particular disturbing, offensive and shocking content, and its strong reliance on state actors to observe fundamental rights. It was concluded that the Regulation’s primary objective is to set a predictable environment which would allow all stakeholders involved to combat illegal content online. The research question was answered in the negative. Never the less, the redress system proposed by the Regulation for individuals to challenge certain decisions made by platforms was deemed to be effective, despite its numerous shortcomings.