Suchergebnisse

This book is about rights and powers in the digital age. It is an attempt to reframe the role of constitutional democracies in the algorithmic society. By focusing on the European constitutional framework as a lodestar, this book examines the rise and consolidation of digital constitutionalism as a reaction to digital capitalism. The primary goal is to examine how European digital constitutionalism can protect fundamental rights and democratic values against the charm of digital liberalism and the challenges raised by platform powers. Firstly, this book investigates the reasons leading to the development of digital constitutionalism in Europe. Secondly, it provides a normative framework analysing to what extent European constitutionalism provides an architecture to protect rights and limit the exercise of unaccountable powers in the algorithmic society. This title is also available as open access on Cambridge Core.

AbstractThis article examines the reasons for different constitutional approaches to platform governance across the Atlantic. By adopting a comparative perspective under the lens of digital constitutionalism, it analyses the move from converging to diverging strategies of the United States and the European Union to address platform governance. From a liberal approach inspired by the US framework at the end of the last century, the European Union has moved towards a constitutional democratic strategy as demonstrated, for instance, by the launch of the Digital Services Act. On the other side of the Atlantic, the United States has reacted to the consolidation of platform governance by maintaining a liberal approach based on a vertical paradigm driven by the First Amendment. Given these democratic and liberal approaches, this article explains how the different constitutional premises of the United States and the European Union have produced diverging responses to the power of online platforms, thus underlining different expressions of digital constitutionalism across the Atlantic. The first section of the article introduces the rise of digital constitutionalism as the primary research angle to study the trans-Atlantic approaches to platform governance. The second section compares the European and US responses to the rise of platform powers. The third section focuses on the implications of these different constitutional strategies on a global scale.

"This is a book about rights and powers in the digital age. It is an attempt to reframe the role of constitutional democracies some in the information or network society, which, in the last twenty years, has transmuted into the algorithmic society as the current societal background where large, multinational social platforms 'sit between traditional nation states and ordinary individuals and the use of algorithms and artificial intelligence agents to govern populations'"--

AbstractAs the harms of hate speech, mis/disinformation and incitement to violence on social media have become increasingly apparent, calls for regulation have accelerated. Most of these debates have centred around the needs and concerns of large markets such as the EU and the United States, or the aggressive approach countries such as Russia and China adopt to regulate online content. Our focus in this article is with the rest, the smaller markets at the periphery of the advertising industry, and the deep inequalities that current approaches to content moderation perpetuate. We outline the depth of the unequal practice of moderation, particularly across Africa, and explore the underlying political and economic factors driving this gap. While recognizing content moderation has many limitations, we conclude by underlining potential approaches to increase oversight in content moderation.

In recent years, risk has become a proxy and a parameter characterizing EU regulation of digital technologies. Nonetheless, EU risk-based regulation in the digital age is multi-faceted in the approaches it takes. This article considers three examples: the General Data Protection Regulation; the proposal for the Digital Services Act; and the proposal for the Artificial Intelligence Act. These three instruments move across a spectrum, from a bottom-up approach (the GDPR) to a top-down architecture (the AI Act), going through an intermediate stage (the DSA). It is argued, however, that despite the different methods, the three instruments share a common objective and project: they all seek to guarantee an optimal balance between innovation and the protection of rights, in line with the developing features of European (digital) constitutionalism. Through this lens, it is thus possible to grasp the "fil rouge" behind the GDPR, the DSA and the AI Act as they express a common constitutional aspiration and direction.
risk-based approach, EU law, constitutional law, digital constitutionalism, digital technologies

This paper addresses the specific challenges arising from the monetization of political speech on social media, and propose a normative argument to extend consumer disclosures to political speech. Political speech enjoys the highest degree of protection by national constitutions as well as supranational and international charters. Unlike commercial speech which usuallyenjoy less constitutional protection, political speech is the foundation of constitutional democracies. The blurring line between political and commercial speech introduces a new layer of complexity in tackling hidden political advertising. Indeed, political speech is likely to attract commercial speech inside a broader scope of protection with the result that potential limitations of this kind of speech would be required to pass a very strict test through the balance with other constitutional safeguards or legitimate interests according to the criteria of necessity, legitimacy and proportionality. This could also question the scope of other regulation designed to govern commercial speech like advertising. To this end, the paper compares regulatory and judicial interpretations adopted in Europe and the United States, and is structured as follows. In the first part, we explore the content monetization business models (including influencer marketing) used on social media, and we identify three types of influencer 'personas' who are prone to engage in political speech. The second part looks into the constitutional differences between commercial and political speech across the Atlantic. The third part provides the normative argument at the intersection between consumer law and freedom of expression, and the fourth part concludes.