No description available.

Seit dem 17. Februar 2024 gilt der Digital Services Act (DSA) in den Mitgliedstaaten der EU. Das Gesetz zielt darauf ab, ein sicheres Online-Umfeld zu schaffen und regelt unter anderem den Umgang von Online-Plattformen mit Hass und Hetze. Zuvor galt in Deutschland das Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG) mit einem ähnlichen Ziel. Durch die strengen Vorgaben und hohen Strafen, die im NetzDG definiert waren, wurde von Teilen der Wissenschaft die Gefahr ausgemacht, dass es zum sogenanntem Overblocking käme – dem übermäßigen Löschen von Inhalten ohne tiefgehende Prüfung. Im Rahmen dieser Arbeit soll untersucht werden, inwiefern sich die Löschpraxis sozialer Plattformen durch die Einführung des DSA im Vergleich zum NetzDG verändert hat. Im theoretischen Teil der Arbeit werden die beiden Gesetze vorgestellt und im Hinblick auf die Löschvorgaben miteinander verglichen. Anschließend werden die Löschstatistiken der sozialen Plattformen YouTube und Facebook vor und nach der Einführung des DSA analysiert. Auf Basis der Ergebnisse wird diskutiert, wie sich die Löschpraxis durch die Einführung des DSA im Vergleich zum NetzDG entwickelt hat.:Inhaltsverzeichnis Abkürzungsverzeichnis 7 1 Einleitung 9 1.1 Relevanz 9 1.2 Zielsetzung 10 1.3 Aufbau 10 2 Theoretischer Rahmen 13 2.1 Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG) 13 2.1.1 Hintergrund 13 2.1.1.1 Gesetzgeberische Zielstellung 13 2.1.1.2 Gesetzeshistorie 13 2.1.2 Inhalt 15 2.1.2.1 Normadressat*innen 15 2.1.2.2 Beschwerdemanagement 16 2.1.2.3 Fristen 18 2.1.2.4 Transparenzpflichten 19 2.1.2.5 Weitere Pflichten 20 2.1.2.6 Sanktionen 20 2.1.3 Kritik 21 2.1.3.1 Overblocking 21 2.1.3.2 Herkunftslandprinzip 25 2.1.3.3 Weitere Kritik 26 2.2 Digital Services Act (DSA) 29 2.2.1 Hintergrund 29 2.2.1.1 Gesetzgeberische Zielstellung 29 2.2.1.2 Gesetzgebungsverfahren 30 2.2.2 Inhalt 30 2.2.2.1 Normadressat*innen 30 2.2.2.2 Beschwerdemanagement 32 2.2.2.3 Fristen 34 2.2.2.4 Risikomanagement 34 2.2.2.5 Transparenzpflichten 35 2.2.2.6 Weitere Pflichten 36 2.2.2.7 Sanktionen 37 2.2.3 Deutsche Umsetzung – Digitale Dienste Gesetz (DDG) 38 2.3 Vergleich der Vorgaben im NetzDG und im DSA 40 2.3.8 Zusammenfassung der Änderungen 47 3 Praktische Analyse 49 3.1 Methodik 49 3.1.1 Auswahl der Plattformen 49 3.1.2 Datenquellen 49 3.1.3 Analysekriterien 52 3.1.3.1 Anteil der Maßnahmen an Beschwerdeinhalten 52 3.1.3.2 Verhältnis der AGB- zu Gesetzes-Maßnahmen 53 3.1.3.3 Zeitraum zwischen dem Beschwerdeeingang und der Maßnahme 54 3.1.3.4 Anteil der wiederhergestellten Inhalte an Maßnahmen 55 3.1.3.5 Anteil proaktiver Maßnahmen an Maßnahmen 56 3.1.4 Weitere Anmerkungen 57 3.2 Löschpraxis auf YouTube 58 3.2.1 Allgemeine Informationen 58 3.2.2 Analyse der Löschstatistiken 58 3.2.3 Entwicklung der Löschpraxis 71 3.3 Löschpraxis auf Facebook 73 3.3.1 Allgemeine Informationen 73 3.3.2 Analyse der Löschstatistiken 73 3.3.3 Entwicklung der Löschpraxis 84 4 Schlussfolgerungen 87 4.1 Zusammenfassung 87 4.2 Limitationen der Analyse 89 4.3 Ausblick 90 5 Berichtsverzeichnis 93 6 Literaturverzeichnis 97 7 Abbildungsverzeichnis 103 8 Anhang 105 8.1 Datensätze YouTube 105 8.2 Datensätze Facebook 115 9 Eidesstattliche Erklärung 124

Online platforms play a crucial role for the right to freedom of expression. Due to the increasing spread of illegal content online, regulatory measures have been taken on an EU-level to curb the dissemination of illegal and harmful content online. Trapped in a dilemma, online platforms grapple with the challenge of ensuring a safer online environment by removing illegal content and taking proactive measures, meanwhile avoiding excessive moderation.  Against this background, this essay explores online platforms' liability for third-party content under the e-commerce directive and the Digital Services Act (DSA). Furthermore, the essay examines how the DSA affects users' ability to file complaints against content moderation by online platforms, analyzing whether the DSA enhances clarity in the liability framework compared to the e-commerce directive and evaluating its effectiveness in achieving its intended purpose. In broad, the analysis compares the legal framework in relation to the impact on users’ freedom of expression.  The DSA has retained broad liability exemption for online platforms in relation to illegal material published by a third-party, causing online platforms to avoid searching for harmful content. However, the inclusion of a "good samaritan" clause in Article 7 of the DSA can resolve the tension between proactive measures on the one hand, while retaining the liability exemption on the other hand. In addition, the DSA brings significant changes and introduces increased transparency and due diligence obligations which complements the liability framework.  Regarding users' ability to challenge content moderation, the essay notes that the DSA introduces mainly three options for users: imposing online platforms to provide statement of reasons when imposing restrictions, (Article 17), internal complaints systems (Article 20), and external dispute resolution bodies (Article 21). While these avenues offer users opportunities to challenge content moderation made by platforms, the analysis shows that the system has some shortcomings, including potential cost and time burdens for online platforms.  The essay concludes that the DSA introduces nuances to the liability framework and provides avenues for users to challenge content moderation to a higher degree. The effectiveness of the provisions in achieving legal clarity and safeguarding fundamental rights will depend on practical implementation and further regulatory developments such as precedents from the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The concern about disinformation in the digital space has increased since the U.S Presidential Election and the British ‘Brexit’ Referendum in 2016. Many have argued for stricter regulatory frameworks for the Internet to uphold the public’s trust in democratic institutions. In December 2020, the European Commission officially published the proposal of the Digital Services Act (DSA), a new regulation partly designed to approach the dissemination of disinformation in the digital space. Considering the political significance of the DSA, this critical study is interested in the discursive role of media in the public’s meaning making of the legislation in particular and, to some extent, Internet regulations in general. Specifically, the study focuses on linguistic aspects in a selection of 14 Swedish news media texts from December 2020 to systematically draw out the ideological implications behind the related discourses, and ultimately whose interests are represented in the in the conception of the DSA in Sweden. Focus is also paid on how and to what extent disinformation is included or excluded in the media discourses. The analysis is conducted with critical discourse analysis as both methodology and theoretical framework, with a complementary ideological and sociopolitical perspective. The results reveal a widespread support for the DSA specifically or Internet regulations in general, advocating for stricter governance in the digital space to a certain degree. Additionally, the DSA is constructed as a means to tackle the dominating role of large digital service providers in the digital market, establishing an economic outlook of the DSA. Consequently, disinformation is neglected in the media discourses and its political significance is therefore diminished.

No description available.

The intentional spread of incorrect information, ‘disinformation’ has increased rapidly in the past couple of years. Bringing with it serious threats to aspects of modern society that constitute central parts of the European Union’s values, thus requiring protection in line with the core aims and duties under EU law. Despite this, the phenomenon of disinformation has not been the focus of regulation until recently, and any attempts to further the regulation of disinformation risks limiting the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information. This right is embedded in Article 11 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) and entails protection so fierce that it sets constraints for what actions the European Union (EU) and Member States may take to regulate any expression and information. In light of this information, the study aims to evaluate the current legal response to disinformation under EU law by assessing possible parallels with hate speech and examining possibilities for the EU and Member States to increase their response to disinformation. This aim is pursued through the use of the legal dogmatic method when investigating the sources and by juxtaposing disinformation with hate speech, which is more firmly regulated. The latter is assessed to determine whether the fiercer regulation of hate speech could arguably be a requirement for disinformation as well. The study offers a deeper understanding of the competencies and capacities within the complex and multilayered EU system and on these grounds then discusses the sufficiency of the current response to disinformation and if there are possibilities to enhance it. Through this assessment, disinformation is found homogenous to hate speech, and possibilities for the EU and Member States to enhance the regulation of disinformation are detected. The study therefore concludes that the current response to disinformation is insufficient in contrast with the response to disinformation and in line with the aims and duties to protect under EU law.

This paper reviews the responsibilities and liability of online marketplaces within the Digital Services Act (DSA) framework. The DSA, proposed by the European Union, represents a comprehensive legislative initiative to regulate digital platforms and intermediaries, with a particular emphasis on online marketplaces. Specifically, the focus of this paper is on the obligations imposed on online marketplaces, shedding light on the regulatory landscape governing their conduct and responsibilities. This paper aims to examine the implications of the extended responsibilities of online marketplaces under the DSA. The analysis explores potential changes in their levels of responsibility, obligations, and measures for handling user-generated content. Through this, the aim is to contribute to the debate on regulating digital platforms, shedding light on key aspects of online marketplace responsibilities. This is performed using a critical policy analysis methodology, examining the legal content of the DSA regulation, and analysing the practical consequences of its implementation, with a special focus on how the DSA ensures a responsible and sustainable retail environment and what the increased requirements mean for online marketplaces in practice.

No description available.