Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Social media platforms have become the main channel for people to communicate, access information and share content. A handful of giant platforms dominate the markets and, through a complex typology of conducts, are able to strongly affect users’ exposure to content, violating their privacy, as well as their freedom of expression and information. Regulators have at disposal a toolbox to fix the problem. This article analyses possible instruments and makes suggestions to contribute to the debate.

Keywords

Social media freedom of expression competition regulation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ARTICLE 19. (2017). EU fails to protect free speech online, again. Retrieved from https://www.article19.org/resources/eu-fails-to-protect-free-speech-online-again/

ARTICLE 19. (2018). Side-stepping rights: Regulating speech by contract, policy brief. Retrieved from https://www.article19.org/resources/side-stepping-rights-regulating-speech-by-contract/

Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato. (2018). PS11112 Facebook-Condivisione dati con terzi, Decision n. 27432.

Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni. (2018). Online disinformation practices and the fake content supply chain, Report, EN version. Retrieved from https://www.agcom.it/documents/10179/13325831/Pubblicazione+20-12-2018/7db41746-11e8-43d4-824b-003d80a6284d?version=1.0

Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Garante della Privacy. (2017). Big data Interim report in the context of the joint inquiry on ‘Big data’. Retrieved from https://www.agcom.it/documents/10179/10875949/Allegato+4-9-2018/f9befcb1-4706-4daa-ad38-c0d767add5fd?version=1.0

BEUC. (2017). Fitness Check of EU Consumer Law, Position Paper.

BEUC. (2018). Ensuring consumer protection in the platform economy, position paper. BEUC-X-2018-080–02/10/2018

Botta

Wiedeman

(2018). EU competition law enforcement vis-à-vis exploitative conducts in the data economy. Exploring the Terra Incognita, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper 18-08.

Bourreau

De Streel

(2018). The regulation of personalised pricing in the digital era, DAFT/COMP, WD(2018)150, OECD publication

10.

Bundeskattellamt. (2019). Bundeskartellamt prohibits Facebook from combining user data from different sources, Press release. Retrieved from https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2019/07_02_2019_Facebook.html

11.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (2012). OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, pp. 391–407. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT

12.

Clifford

(2018). Citizen-Consumers in a Personalised Galaxy: Emotion Influenced Decision-Making, a True Path to the Dark Side?. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract1/43037425

13.

Clifford

Verdoodt

(2017). Integrative advertising: The marketing ‘Dark Side’ or merely the emperor’s new clothes? European Journal of Law and Technology, 8.

14.

CoE Committee of Ministers. (2012). Recommendation COM/Reg (2012)4 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the protection of human rights with regard to social networking services.

15.

CoE Committee of Ministers. (2019). Declaration on the manipulative capabilities of algorithmic processes, Decl (13/02/2019)1.

16.

Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés. (2019). Deliberation of the Restricted Committee SAN-2019-001 of 21 January 2019 pronouncing a financial sanction against GOOGLE LLC.

17.

Costa

Cabral F.

Lynskey

(2017). Family ties: The intersection between data protection and competition in EU Law. Common Market Law Review, 54, 11–50.

18.

Court of Justice of the EU. (1974). Case 127/73. Belgische Radio en Televisie and société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs v SV SABAM and NV Fonior.

19.

D’ Cunha

(2018). Best of frenemies? Reflections on privacy and competition four years after the EDPS Preliminary Opinion. International Data Privacy Law, 8, 253–257.

20.

Datainspektionen. (2019). Request for reply and further information sent to Google. Retrieved from https://www.datainspektionen.se/globalassets/dokument/ovrigt/google—request-for-reply-and-further-clarification—skrivelse-till-tillsynsobjekt.pdf

21.

Editorial Board. (2019). How silicon valley puts the ‘Con’ in Consent. If no one reads the terms and conditions, how can they continue to be the legal backbone of the internet. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/02/opinion/internet-facebook-google-consent.html

22.

Edwards

(2018). Data protection and e-privacy: From spam and cookies to big data, machine learning and profiling, in law, Policy and the Internet Hart Publishing

23.

EFF. (2016). Zero Rating: What it is and why you should care. Retrieved from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/zero-rating-what-it-is-why-you-should-care

24.

EU Council (1993). Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, pp. 29–34.

25.

European Commission. (1971). Decision 71/224/CEE.

26.

European Commission. (1972). Decision 72/268/CEE.

27.

European Commission. (1981). Decision 82/204.

28.

European Commission. (2001). Decision 2001/463/EC.

29.

European Commission. (2018a). Recommendation on measures to effectively tackle illegal content online, C(2018) 1177 final.

30.

European Commission. (2018b). A new deal for consumers: Commission strengthens EU consumer rights and enforcement. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=620435

31.

European Data Protection Supervisor. (2018). Opinion 8/2018 on the legislative package ‘A New Deal for Consumers’.

32.

European Data Protection Supervisor. (2019). Guidelines on assessing the proportionality of measures that limit the fundamental rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data, draft version for stakeholder consultation. Retrieved from https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/19-02-25_proportionality_guidelines_en.pdf

33.

European Parliament. (2017). Resolution on fundamental rights implications of big data: privacy, data protection, non-discrimination, security and law-enforcement (2016/2225(INI)).

34.

European Parliament. (2018). Recommendation on election cooperation networks, online transparency, protection against cybersecurity incidents and fighting disinformation campaigns in the context of elections to the European Parliament, (12.9.2018, C(2018) 5949 Final).

35.

European Parliament and Council. (2000). Directive 2000/31/EC on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, pp. 1–16.

36.

European Parliament and Council. (2005). Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, pp. 22–39.

37.

European Parliament and Council. (2011). Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council Text with EEA relevance, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, pp. 64–88.

38.

European Parliament and Council. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679, OJ L 119, 4 May 2016.

39.

European Parliament Research Service. (2018). Modernisation of EU consumer protection rules. A new deal for consumers, PE 623.547.

40.

Evans

D. S.

Schmalensee

(2015). The antitrust analysis of multi-sided platform businesses. In Blair

R.D.

Sokol

D.D.

, (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of International Antitrust Economics (pp. 404–447). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

41.

Facebook. (2019). Community Standards. 12. Hate Speech. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_content

42.

Filistrucchi

Geradin

van Damme

E. E. C.

(2012). Identifying two-sided markets TILEC Discussion Paper No. 2012-008. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2008661orhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2008661

43.

Garante della Privacy. (2019). Cambridge Analytica: Fact-finding over, Italian SA ready to impose sanctions. Investigations have shown additional instances of unlawful processing, press release. Retrieved from https://www.garanteprivacy.it/web/guest/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/docweb/9081475#

44.

Graef

(2018). Blurring boundaries of consumer welfare: How to create synergies between competition, consumer and data protection law in digital markets. In Mark-Olivier

& others (Eds.), Personal Data in Competition, Consumer Protection and IP Law. Towards a Holistic Approach? Berlin, Germany: Springer.

45.

Graef

Clifford

Valke

(2018). Fairness and enforcement: Bridging competition, data protection and consumer law. International Data Privacy Law, 8, 200–223.

46.

Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. (2008). Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework, A/HRC/8/54/HCR/17/31 endorsed by the Human Rights Council in its Resolution 17/4 of 16 June 2011.

47.

Helberger

(2012). Exposure diversity as a policy goal. The Journal of Media Law, 4, 65–92.

48.

Helberger

Karppinen

D’Acunto

(2018). Exposure diversity as a design principle for recommender systems. Information, Communication and Society, 21, 191–207.

49.

Helberger

Zuiderveen Borgesius

Reyna

(2017). The perfect match? A closer look at the relationship between EU consumer law and data protection law. Common Market Law Review, 1427, 54.

50.

Hitlin

Rainie

(2019). Facebook algorithms and personal data, pew research center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2019/01/16/facebook-algorithms-and-personal-data/

51.

Jerker

Svantesson

(2018). Enter the Quagmire – The complicated relationship between data protection law and consumer protection law. Computer Law and Security Review, 25, 34.

52.

Jullien

(2011). Competition in multi-sided networks: Divide and conquer. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 3, 1–35.

53.

Kalimo

Majcher

(2017). The concept of fairness: Linking EU competition and data protection law in the digital marketplace. European Law Review, 210, 223–228.

54.

Karppinen

(2013). Rethinking media pluralism. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.

55.

Madrigal

A. C.

(2012). Reading the privacy policies you encounter in a year would take 76 work days. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/reading-the-privacy-policies-you-encounter-in-a-year-would-take-76-work-days/253851/

56.

McNamee

(2017). Commission’s position on tackling illegal content online is contradictory and dangerous for free speech, EDRi. Retrieved from https://edri.org/commissions-position-tackling-illegal-content-online-contradictory-dangerous-free-speech/

57.

Nguyen

Hui

P.-M.

Harper

F. M.

Terveen

Konstan

J. A.

(2014). Exploring the filter bubble: The effect of using recommender systems on content diversity. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 677–686. ACM.

58.

OAS Special Rapporteur on FOE. (2013). Freedom of Expression and the Internet. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.CIDH/RELE/INF. 11/13

59.

OFCOM. (2018). UK Communications Market Report. Retrived from https://www.ofcom.org.uk/_data/assets/pdf_file/0022/117256/CMR-2018-narrative-report.pdf

60.

Privacy International and ARTICLE 19. (2018). Privacy and freedom of expression in the age of artificial intelligence. Retrieved from https://www.article19.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Privacy-and-Freedom-of-Expression-In-the-Age-of-Artificial-Intelligence-1.pdf

61.

Radet

(2018). Deceived by Design. How tech companies use dark patterns to discourage us from exercising our rights to privacy. Retrieved from https://fil.forbrukerradet.no/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2018-06-27-deceived-by-design-final.pdf

62.

Ranking Digital Rights. (2019). Consultation draft. Human rights risk scenarios: Targeted advertising. Retrieved from https://rankingdigitalrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Human-Rights-Risk-Scenarios-targeted-advertising.pdf

63.

Special Rapporteur on FoE. (2018). Report to the general assembly on AI and its impact on freedom of expression and information, A/73/348.

64.

Susser

Roessler

Nissenbaun

. (2018). Online Manipulation: Hidden Influences in a Digital World. Retrieved from SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=3306006

65.

Twitter. (2019). Hateful conduct policy. Retrieved from https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy

66.

United Nations General Assembly. (1966). International covenant on civil and political rights, Vol. 999. UN Treaty Series.

67.

Yeung

(2018). Five fears about mass predictive personalisation in an age of surveillance capitalism. International Data Privacy Law, 8, 3.

68.

YouTube. (2018). Trusted flagger programme. Retrieved from https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7554338?hl=en

69.

Youtube. (2019). Dispute A Content ID Claim. Retrieved from https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=en

70.

We Are Social and Hootsuite. (2018). Digital in 2018: Q3 Global Digital Statshot, Retrieved from https://es.slideshare.net/wearesocialsg/digital-in-2018-q3-global-digital-statshot

71.

Woods

Perrin

(2018). The internet: to regulate or not to regulate? Written evidence (IRN0047), Communications Committee, House of Lords. Retrieved from http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/communications-committee/the-internet-to-regulate-or-not-to-regulate/written/82684.html

72.

(2017). The Attention Merchants: How your time and attention are gathered and sold. Atlantic Books.

73.

Zuckerberg

(2018). A blueprint for content governance and enforcement. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-blueprint-for-content-governance-and-enforcement/10156443129621634/

Social media platforms and content exposure: How to restore users’ control

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References