Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Does a policy of escalating consequences for alleged copyright infringements decrease such incidents? Meyer looks at French laws passed in 2009 that provide for graduated responses up to suspension of Internet access for asserted illicit behavior. Preliminary results reported in 2011 suggest that these laws do decrease such incidents. However, Meyer argues this debate is not just about copyright, but is also used for leverage in the Internet governance debate to support broader content control. The future of the Internet, she says, should not be determined by one set of online issues that weigh the scales unduly against the open information distribution function of the Internet.

Abstract
Does a policy of escalating consequences for alleged copyright infringements decrease such incidents? Meyer looks at French laws passed in 2009 that provide for graduated responses up to suspension of Internet access for asserted illicit behavior. Preliminary results reported in 2011 suggest that these laws do decrease such incidents. However, Meyer argues this debate is not just about copyright, but is also used for leverage in the Internet governance debate to support broader content control. The future of the Internet, she says, should not be determined by one set of online issues that weigh the scales unduly against the open information distribution function of the Internet.

Cet article analyse les mesures prises par les plateformes de réseaux sociaux en matière de campagnes politiques en ligne. Sont étudiées Meta, Google, Twitter et TikTok, et notamment les types de contenu et de modération que ces plateformes privilégient ainsi que la fréquence des interventions (autodéclarées) dans la lutte contre la désinformation (politique/électorale). Nous analysons leurs politiques en matière de campagnes politiques en ligne et comparons ces approches aux objectifs définis dans le nouveau code de conduite de l'UE sur la désinformation et la proposition de règlement de l'UE sur la transparence et le ciblage de la publicité politique. Cet article montre que les politiques et pratiques des plateformes méritent une analyse détaillée car elles déterminent les limites de ce qu'est un discours acceptable en ligne. De plus, ces cas illustrent que les mesures visant à réglementer les discours politiques ne doivent pas se limiter aux seules publicités, mais doivent également inclure les politiques visant les comptes politiques et la désinformation.

This study examines the consequences of the increasingly prevalent use of artificial intelligence (AI) disinformation initiatives upon freedom of expression, pluralism and the functioning of a democratic polity. The study examines the trade-offs in using automated technology to limit the spread of disinformation online. It presents options (from self-regulatory to legislative) to regulate automated content recognition (ACR) technologies in this context. Special attention is paid to the opportunities for the European Union as a whole to take the lead in setting the framework for designing these technologies in a way that enhances accountability and transparency and respects free speech. The present project reviews some of the key academic and policy ideas on technology and disinformation and highlights their relevance to European policy. Chapter 1 introduces the background to the study and presents the definitions used. Chapter 2 scopes the policy boundaries of disinformation from economic, societal and technological perspectives, focusing on the media context, behavioural economics and technological regulation. Chapter 3 maps and evaluates existing regulatory and technological responses to disinformation. In Chapter 4, policy options are presented, paying particular attention to interactions between technological solutions, freedom of expression and media pluralism.

AbstractThis paper investigates how the European Union (EU) and online platforms operationalise 'political advertising' and 'transparency' in a context of ongoing political and policy debates on regulating online platforms. We compare ongoing EU policy initiatives (revised Code of Practice on Disinformation and Regulation on the Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising) against platform policies and practices (Google, Mastodon, Meta, Microsoft, Telegram, TikTok, Twitter/X) undertaken to moderate political actors and advertising. We argue that the concept of transparency is used as an 'empty signifier': meaningful at the political and declarative level but when translated into practice, leads to diverse results. The paper contributes to academic and policy debates on platform responsibility and political advertising transparency in light of the recent European elections and the future implementation of the Regulation on the Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising.