Chokepoints : internet intermediaries and the private regulation of counterfeit goods on the internet

This dissertation examines non-state regulation on the Internet, specifically the capacity of corporate actors to create private regulatory arrangements and the degree to which those efforts may rely upon the state. It critically traces the interactions and inter-dependencies between corporate actors and the state through the lens of corporate online anti-counterfeiting enforcement efforts. Between 2010 and 2013, small groups of multinational corporations and government officials from the United States, United Kingdom and the European Commission created a global private regulatory regime to control websites selling counterfeit goods. In this regime, for the first time, major U.S.-based Internet firms, like Google and PayPal, adopted so-called "voluntary best practices" agreements that guide their regulation of these websites on behalf of rights holders. This project examines eight of these agreements that pertain to five Internet sectors: advertising, domain name, marketplace, payment, and search services. In this particular case of private regulation, the state plays a strong, even central role. "Voluntary agreements" are a deliberate misnomer as government actors, acting in concert with rights holders, employed varying degrees of coercion to pressure major Internet firms and payment providers to adopt industry-derived best practices. Despite these coercive elements, however, there are common financial and reputational interests between rights holders and Internet firms. More importantly, these agreements serve strategic economic and national security interests, particularly those of the United States. The U.S. government, the principal architect of the regime, has interests in the protection of intellectual property because of its large stable of successful rights holders. In addition, it has national security interests in tapping into the vast troves of personal and commercial data that firms, such as Google and Yahoo, collect from their users. Corporate agreements to regulate the online distribution of counterfeit goods speak to private regulation on the Internet more generally. This dissertation contends that large corporate actors-both rights holders and Internet firms-can act as arbiters on the legality of technologies, services and applications on the Internet. In doing so, they can have significant influence in determining what types of new technologies and services prosper and which fail. Corporate anti-counterfeiting efforts demonstrate not only the considerable regulatory capacity of these Internet firms but also state and corporate interests in working with these firms to set rules and standards that govern Internet services

Human Rights in the Age of Platforms

Today such companies as Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter play an increasingly important role in how users form and express opinions, encounter information, debate, disagree, mobilize, and maintain their privacy. What are the human rights implications of an online domain managed by privately owned platforms? According to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, adopted by the UN Human Right Council in 2011, businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights and to carry out human rights due diligence. But this goal is dependent on the willingness of states to encode such norms into business regulations and of companies to comply. In this volume, contributors from across law and internet and media studies examine the state of human rights in today's platform society

Digital Platform Regulation

This Open Access volume provides an in-depth exploration of global policy and governance issues related to digital platform regulation. With an international ensemble of contributors, the volume has at its heard the question: what would actually be involved in digital platform regulation?’. Once a specialised and niche field within internet and digital media studies, internet governance has in recent years moved to the forefront of policy debate. In the wake of scandals such as Cambridge Analytica and the global ‘techlash’ against digital monopolies, platform studies are undergoing a critical turn, but there is a greater need to connect such analysis to questions of public policy. This volume does just that, through a rich array of chapters concretely exploring the operation and influence of digital platforms and their related policy concerns. A wide variety of digital communication platforms are explored, including social media, content portals, search engines and app stores. An important and timely work, ‘Digital Platform Regulation’ provides valuable insights into new global platform-orientated policy reforms, supplying an important resource to researchers everywhere seeking to engage with policymakers in the debate about the power of digital platforms and how to address it

World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development: 2017/2018 Global Report

Abstract: Please refer to full text to view abstrac

Using US Artificial Intelligence to Fight Human Trafficking in Europe

editorial reviewedHuman trafficking is keeping pace with new technologies, but so is its repression. Nowadays, artificial intelligence (AI) systems support the daily work of law enforcement authorities in detecting and investigating trafficking schemes. These systems were developed, and are used primarily, in the United States of America (US). As the fight against human trafficking is a worldwide priority, they are often exported from the US or replicated. Yet, so far, little research has been done to examine how (US) policies and values might be embedded in these specific systems. This article argues that the spread of US tools using artificial intelligence to combat human trafficking hinders the autonomy of foreign States. Particularly in the European context, these tools might challenge national criminal sovereignty as well as Europe’s digital sovereignty. The article highlights the US policies surrounding human trafficking that are embedded in these AI systems (legal definition, political priorities and decisions) and the lack of adequate consideration of existing European standards. These are meant to protect human rights while developing and using AI systems, i.e. the protection of personal data and control over technical standards

The Algorithmic Divide and Equality in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

In the age of artificial intelligence, highly sophisticated algorithms have been deployed to provide analysis, detect patterns, optimize solutions, accelerate operations, facilitate self-learning, minimize human errors and biases and foster improvements in technological products and services. Notwithstanding these tremendous benefits, algorithms and intelligent machines do not provide equal benefits to all. Just as the digital divide has separated those with access to the Internet, information technology and digital content from those without, an emerging and ever-widening algorithmic divide now threatens to take away the many political, social, economic, cultural, educational and career opportunities provided by machine learning and artificial intelligence.Although policy makers, commentators and the mass media have paid growing attention to algorithmic bias and the shortcomings of machine learning and artificial intelligence, the algorithmic divide has yet to attract much policy and scholarly attention. To fill this lacuna, this article draws on the digital divide literature to systematically analyze this new inequitable gap between the technology haves and have-nots. Utilizing an analytical framework that the Author developed in the early 2000s, the article begins by discussing the five attributes of the algorithmic divide: awareness, access, affordability, availability and adaptability.This article then turns to three major problems precipitated by an emerging and fast-expanding algorithmic divide: (1) algorithmic deprivation; (2) algorithmic discrimination; and (3) algorithmic distortion. While the first two problems affect primarily those on the unfortunate side of the divide, the last problem impacts individuals on both sides. This article concludes by proposing seven non-exhaustive clusters of remedial actions to help bridge this emerging and ever-widening algorithmic divide. Combining law, communications policy, ethical principles, institutional mechanisms and business practices, the article fashions a holistic response to help foster equality in the age of artificial intelligence

Consistent regulatory and self-regulatory mechanisms for media freedom in the Digital Single Market : the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) as meta-regulation

This paper discusses how technology convergence is affecting the regulatory landscape of media freedom and media pluralism in Europe and draws relevant policy recommendations on its future development in light of the forthcoming proposal for a European Media Freedom Act

Platform://Democracy: Perspectives on Platform Power, Public Values and the Potential of Social Media Councils

Social media platforms have created private communication orders which they rule through terms of service and algorithmic moderation practices. As their impact on public communication and human rights has grown, different models to increase the role of public interests and values in the design of their rules and their practices has, too. But who should speak for both the users and the public at large? Bodies of experts and/or selected user representatives, usually called Platform Councils of Social Media Councils (SMCs) have gained attention as a potential solution. Examples of Social Media Councils include Meta’s Oversight Board but most platforms companies have so far shied away from installing one. This survey of approaches to increasing the quality of platform decision-making and content governance involving more than 35 researchers from four continents brough to together in regional "research clinics" makes clear that trade-offs have to be carefully balanced. The larger the council, the less effective is its decision-making, even if its legitimacy might be increased. While there is no one-size-fits-all approach, the projects demonstrates that procedures matter, that multistakeholderism is a key concept for effective Social Media Councils, and that incorporating technical expertise and promoting inclusivity are important considerations in their design. As the Digital Services Act becomes effective in 2024, a Social Media Council for Germany’s Digital Services Coordinator (overseeing platforms) can serve as test case and should be closely monitored. Beyond national councils, there is strong case for a commission focused on ensuring human rights online can be modeled after the Venice Commission and can provide expertise and guidelines on policy questions related to platform governance, particularly those that affect public interests like special treatment for public figures, for mass media and algorithmic diversity. The commission can be staffed by a diverse set of experts from selected organizations and institutions established in the platform governance field