TOWARDS A GLOBAL REGULATORY REGIME FOR TECH GIANTS
This paper offers tools for regulatory authorities to effectively address the spread of fake news by tech giants. Evaluating current frameworks, which often focus on symptom treatment like content removal and fact-checking, the study finds these methods insufficient for tackling the root causes of misinformation. Proposing a harm-based regulatory regime inspired by social medicine, political science, and legal theory, the paper emphasizes a holistic approach. Integrating insights from political science and revisiting the concept of regimes as global regulation, it provides a structured framework for regulatory authorities. This approach includes understanding socio-economic incentives, leveraging advanced technologies like AI, and promoting digital literacy. The study highlights the importance of principles, norms, rules, and decision-making processes to create a coherent regulatory environment adaptable to various socio-political contexts where interdisciplinary collaboration among governments, digital platforms, civil society, and international organizations is crucial. The proposed regime aims to foster a trustworthy information ecosystem, enhance societal trust, and mitigate the impact of fake news. By recognizing the complexity of fake news, this paper provides mechanisms for raising awareness among all actors involved and structuring their actions within such a legal framework. The ultimate aim is to establish a resilient and reliable digital public sphere, offering regulatory authorities a comprehensive strategy to combat digital misinformation effectively.
Keywords: Tech Giants Regulatory Regime, digital literacy, fake news, harm-based approach, trustworthy information ecosystem.
Books and Articles
Abiri, G. & Buchheim, J. 2022. Beyond True and False: Fake News and the Digital Epistemic Divide. Michigan Technology Law Review, 29, pp. 59-109. https://doi.org/10.36645/mtlr.29.1.beyond
Amnesty International. 2022. What the Digital Services Act means for human rights and harmful Big Tech business models. Amnesty International EU Office. Available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol30/5830/2022/en/ (10. 10. 2024).
Buri, I. & van Hoboken, I. 2021. The DSA proposal: a critical overview. Institute for Information Law, DSA Observatory. Available at: https://dsa-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Buri-Van-Hoboken-DSA-discussion-paper-Version-28_10_21.pdf (10. 10. 2024).
Caled, D. & Silva, M. J. 2022. Digital media and misinformation: An outlook on multidisciplinary strategies against manipulation. Journal of Computational Social Science, 5, pp. 123–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-021-00118-8
Calil, A. L. 2022. Public Agents in Social Media Regulation: The Brazilian Case in a Comparative Perspective, Journal of Law, Market & Innovation, 1(2), pp. 162-182.
Cassese, S. 2005. Administrative Law Without the State? The Challenge of Global Regulation. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 37(4), pp. 663-684.
Dworkin, R. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. London: Duckworth.
Engel, G. L. 1977. The Need for a New Medical Model: A Challenge for Biomedicine. Science, 196(4286), pp. 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.847460
Flew, T., Martin, F. & Suzor, N. 2019. Internet Regulation as Media Policy: Rethinking the Question of Digital Communication Platform Governance. Journal of Digital Media & Policy, 10(1), pp. 33-50. https://doi.org/10.1386/jdmp.10.1.33_1
Government of Canada. 2021. Have your say: The Government’s proposed approach to address harmful content online. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/harmful-online-content.html (10. 10. 2024).
Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Bill to Stop the Censorship of Floridians by Big Tech. 2021. Available at: https://www.flgov.com/2021/05/24/governor-ron-desantis-signs-bill-to-stop-the-censorship-of-floridians-by-big-tech/ (10. 10. 2024)
Humprecht, E. 2018. Where Fake News Flourishes: A Comparison across Four Western Democracies, Information, Communication & Society, 22(13), pp. 1973-1988. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1474241
Krasner, S. D. 1983. International Regimes. In: Krasner, S. D. (ed.), International Regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 1-21.
Meyers, Z. 2022. Will the Digital Services Act save Europe from disinformation? Centre for European Reform. Available at: https://www.cer.eu/insights/will-digital-services-act-save-europe-disinformation (9. 10. 2024).
Salloum, J. et al. 2024. Canada’s new Online Harms Act (C-63): what you need to know. Osler. Available at: https://www.osler.com/en/insights/updates/canada-s-new-online-harms-act-c-63-what-you-need-to-know/?pdf=1 (10. 10. 2024).
Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law. 2024. Rethinking Digital Media Regulation. Available at: https://csl.mpg.de/en/projects/rethinking-digital-media-regulation?c=178896 (27. 6. 2024).
Rinceanu, J. & Stephenson, R. 2024. Differential Diagnosis in Online Regulation. Eucrim. Available at: https://eucrim.eu/articles/differential-diagnosis-in-online-regulation/ (10. 10. 2024).
Ruggie, J. G. 1975. International Responses to Technology: Concepts and Trends, International Organization, 29(3), pp. 557-583. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300031696
Stephenson, R. & Rinceanu, J. 2023. Digital Iatrogenesis: Towards an Integrative Model of Internet Regulation. Eucrim, 1, pp. 73-80. Available at: https://eucrim.eu/articles/digital-iatrogenesis/ (10. 10. 2024). https://doi.org/10.30709/eucrim-2023-007
Taylor, R. & Rieger, A. 1985. Medicine as a social science: Rudolf Virchow on the typhus epidemic in Upper Silesia. International Journal of Health Services, 15(4), pp. 547-559. https://doi.org/10.2190/XX9V-ACD4-KUXD-C0E5
Vogus, C. 2021. Answers to Five Key Questions from House Energy & Commerce Section 230 Hearing. Center for Democracy and Technology. Available at: https://cdt.org/insights/answers-to-five-key-questions-from-house-energy-commerce-section-230-hearing/ (10. 10. 2024).
Zweigert, K. & Kötz, H. 1998. Introduction to Comparative Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press.
Legal sources and case-law
Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB), last amended by Article 1 of the Law of 28 March 2023, Federal Law Gazette I p. 368.
Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008)
European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC [2022] OJ L277/1.
Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008).
Florida Senate Bill 7072, 2021.
Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2019).
Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC, 755 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2014).
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. (2024)
NetChoice, LLC, et al. v. Attorney General, State of Florida, et al., No. 21-12355 (11th Cir. 2022).
Act to Improve Enforcement of the Law in Social Networks (Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz – NetzDG), Federal Law Gazette I at 3352, enacted 1 October 2017
United States, Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (1996).United States Constitution.
United Nations (2015) Paris Agreement.
Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997)
Online Harms Act, Bill C-63, 1st Sess, 44th Parl, 2024.