The Right Tools: Europe's Intermediary Liability Laws and the 2016 General Data Protection Regulation

Keller, Daphne

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2914684

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most efforts to regulate US-based platform companies, however, have been situated at the EU level. The most prominent conflicts between the EU and platform companies include questions of taxation and competition, privacy and data protection (Farrell & Newman 2019a;Keller 2018b), and freedom of expression versus individuals' defamation rights and hate speech (Kaye 2019). The regulatory ambitions on the side of the EU have increased and the most heated rhetoric in these matters has shifted toward looming trade wars between the EU and the United States.…”

Section: Governing Visibility and Reachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Transformations of the Public Arena

Jungherr

Schroeder

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital technologies have changed the public arena, but there is little scholarly consensus about how they have done so. This Element lays out a new framework for the digitally mediated public arena by identifying structural changes and continuities with the pre-digital era. It examines three country cases – the United States, Germany, and China. In these countries and elsewhere, the emergence of new infrastructures such as search engines and social media platforms increasingly mediate and govern the visibility and reach of information, and thus reconfigure the transmission belt between citizens and political elites. This shift requires a rethinking of the workings and dysfunctions of the contemporary public arena and ways to improve it.

show abstract

Section: Governing Visibility and Reachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Transformations of the Public Arena

Jungherr

Schroeder

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since 2015, there have been multiple overlapping efforts by various states to try and govern the content moderation practices of companies, taking on a wide variety of institutional forms that range from domestic statutory legislation to more flexible 'co-regulatory' initiatives and private industry-led organizations (Gorwa, 2019a(Gorwa, , 2019b. The most important work on this development has largely been conducted by legal scholars, especially experts in intermediary liability and international human rights law, who have scrutinized both the emerging systems of private platform rulemaking (Klonick, 2017;Kettemann & Schulz, 2020) and assessed the major developments in government regulation (Keller, 2018;Frosio, 2018;Kuczerawy, 2018;Suzor, 2019). This legal scholarship has proven extremely valuable, not only for increasing our general understanding of online content regulation, but also for increasing its global salience as an important issue.…”

Section: A Regulatory Politics Approach To Platform Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Elections, institutions, and the regulatory politics of platform governance: The case of the German NetzDG

Gorwa

2021

Telecommunications Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policy proposals for higher rules and standards governing how major usergenerated content platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube moderate socially problematic content have become increasingly prevalent since the negotiation of the German Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) in 2017. Although a growing body of scholarship has emerged to assess the normative and legal dimensions of these regulatory developments in Germany and beyond, the legal scholarship on intermediary liability leaves key questions about why and how these policies are developed, shaped, and adopted unanswered. The goal of this article is thus to provide a deep case study into the NetzDG from a regulatory politics perspective, highlighting the importance of political and regulatory factors currently under-explored in the burgeoning interdisciplinary literatures on platform governance and platform regulation. The empirical account presented here, which draws on 30 interviews with stakeholders involved in the debate around the NetzDG's adoption, as well as hundreds of pages of deliberative documents obtained via freedom of information access requests, outlines how the NetzDG took shape, and how it overcame various significant obstacles (ranging from resistance from other stakeholders and the European Union's frameworks against regulatory fragmentation) to eventually become law. The article argues, throughout this case study, that both domestic politics and transnational institutional constraints are crucial policy factors that should receive more attention as an important part of platform regulation debates.

show abstract

“…given broad leeway, with limited legal liability over individual pieces of content as long as they had notice-and-takedown systems for things like copyright infringement in place (Keller, 2018b). On transnational privacy issues, industry was permitted to self-certify, allowing American firms to profess their adherence to codes of conduct (and therefore, legal adequacy with EU data protection legislation) created under supervision and enshrined in privacy agreements such as the EU-US Safe Harbour (Poullet, 2006, p. 210).…”

Section: Platform Companies and Regulatory Standards For Free Expressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The platform governance triangle: conceptualising the informal regulation of online content

Gorwa¹

2019

Internet Policy Review

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the new Facebook 'Oversight Body' for content moderation to the 'Christchurch Call to eliminate terrorism and violent extremism online,' a growing number of voluntary and non-binding informal governance initiatives have recently been proposed as attractive ways to rein in Facebook, Google, and other platform companies hosting user-generated content.Drawing on the literature on transnational corporate governance, this article reviews a number of informal arrangements governing online content on platforms in Europe, mapping them onto Abbott and Snidal's ( 2009) 'governance triangle' model. I discuss three key dynamics shaping the success of informal governance arrangements: actor competencies, 'legitimation politics,' and inter-actor relationships of power and coercion.

show abstract

The Right Tools: Europe's Intermediary Liability Laws and the 2016 General Data Protection Regulation

Cited by 10 publications

References 11 publications

Digital Transformations of the Public Arena

Digital Transformations of the Public Arena

Elections, institutions, and the regulatory politics of platform governance: The case of the German NetzDG

The platform governance triangle: conceptualising the informal regulation of online content

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About