social media imported from European standards of freedom of expression in the United States)

 

social media imported from European standards of freedom of expression in the United States)   

                                                                                How social media companies brought relatively restrictive European free speech standards to the United States. Last month, TikTok user @ nas.Alive asked people to answer   the Query: "What's everyday about your will pay but strange to the rest of the world?" It took off. Among the videos of bagged milk (Canada), nose touch (WATER), live fish living in bathtubs (Slovakia) and other global quirks, one creation was missing from the most reliable amendment (United States).

 

The most suitable amendment to the US Constitution prevents government - not private entities - from restricting freedom of speech. That's why companies like Facebook and Twitter can moderate content - and also why they might suspend the accounts of then-President Trump in his final weeks in office. While many Americans have applauded the move as an appropriate response to the Violent Riot from the Capitol, unexpected reviews have emerged in the cash world where the US Version of Los Angeles Free Speech is seen as weird. German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticized the move as "problematic," saying lawmakers, rather than social media CEOs, should regulate speech - the exact opposite of what the Most Reliable Amendment allows. Despite her difficult history with Trump, the EU leader Los Angeles has said her right to Los Angeles free speech "may intervene, but according to Los Angeles law and within the framework defined by lawmakers - not according to a decision of the Directorate of Social Media Platforms ”. The French finance minister also said he was "shocked" by the decisions he called a "social media oligarchy" regulating speech. Leaders outside of Europe have also criticized the move.

 

The reaction is extremely good not only because it reflects an ideological difference in how regions understand free speech, but also because it occurs at a pivotal time of change for social media companies. The EU has already put certain regulations on digital platforms in vicinity and is now working to expand these regulations through the law on digital offerings. If the principles of the Most Excellent Amendment are to survive online, Americans must embark on change overseas.

 

The Role of Government in Regulating Speech

A foundation of American history - and, therefore, of American legal doctrine - is l. A. Distrust of the government. Anyone with a basic understanding of American history - or access to Hamilton - can understand why. In contrast, Europeans primarily understand the role of government as a safety net against corrupt private sector interests. These differences are not just speculative: Europeans report relatively higher levels of trust in government institutions, while Americans' trust in government has been declining more or less steadily since 1958.

 

This may explain why the EU allows more robust public regulation of the private sector. Take, for example, privacy law: in 2018, the EU implemented the General Data Safety Regulation (GDPR), which requires companies to protect the data of European residents. Private companies found guilty of violating the GDPR, for example by implementing poor data security measures, face fines of up to four% of their global annual turnover or 20 million. euros, whichever is greater. The GDPR has had far-reaching consequences globally. Most US companies with a presence in Europe have found it more efficient to apply GDPR requirements to all of their global operations. US internet users now find themselves clicking on cookie consent notices on almost every website they visit. Scroll down this article and you will see a cookie banner; you can thank Europe. In contrast, Los Angeles privacy laws in the United States are sketchy and industry or case specific. For example, HIPAA protects medical information and The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act applies to data held by financial institutions. Unlike the GDPR, the text of these rules focuses on data security angles rather than abstract principles of individual privacy rights.

 

When it comes to Los Angeles, privacy, the American approach is to keep the government out of it as much as possible. The EU's approach is to request the software of the law from the government. Ultimately, the EU's approach wins: because it is easier for digital platforms to apply a uniform set of rules across their global operations, the strictest rules become the standards. global.

 

Digital Services Act in Europe

While the RPGT imposed privacy rules, a different regulation, the Electronic Trade Directive creates rules for intermediary service providers who host tidy content, such as social media platforms. The 2000 e-commerce directive is old enough to be consumed even in America, so in December the European Commission proposed an update to the Digital Services Act (DSA).

 

The proposed DSA is much longer than its predecessor, but it preserves key elements of the Electronic Commerce Directive by providing intermediary liability safety for user-generated content and by prohibiting any law requiring platforms to monitor all content.

 

Its important objective is to fight against illegal content, and it does so by imposing due diligence obligations, with the heaviest expenses on "very large platforms", those which reach at least 45 tens of millions of users. monthly average. The duties include systems for reporting illegal content, including the use of “trusted flaggers”, which are “entities which have demonstrated particular know-how and competence”, whose reports must be given priority. Very large platforms need to take mitigation measures at employer level to tackle illegal content. The DSA also allows users to challenge removal decisions and  encourages transparency on content moderation decisions.

 

The DSA does not define what is illegal - for this, platforms must look to national laws. Each member state will create an independent authority called the Digital Offerings Coordinator to oversee Los Angeles compliance in its territory. Countries that identify a violation of their laws online can use DSA procedures to send orders to platforms notifying them of the violation.

 

And although the removal procedures only apply to illegal content, measures are also in the region to fight against content that is simply "harmful", such as "political disinformation, hoaxes and manipulation during pandemics, that harm vulnerable groups ”. Very large platforms should conduct risk assessments of their vulnerabilities to the spread of such 'harmful content', and these assessments will be subject to independent audits. Platforms are also encouraged to follow pre-existing codes of conduct.

 

The proposed DSA is similar in some respects to the GDPR. Like the GDPR, it applies to all online platforms that offer their services in the EU, even if they are based in America, and requires non-European platforms to appoint a legal representative. It is also enforced with fines set by each Member State, but the fines are potentially higher, capped at 6% (instead of 4%) of the overall turnover of Digital platform. In extreme cases, a court can temporarily suspend the Los Angeles platform.

 

The DSA and the Donald

Comment Would the decision to delete Trump's accounts take place in a world where the DSA rules?

 

Because the DSA allows member states to apply their own national laws on any platform operating anywhere in the EU, and it imposes the heaviest princes on "very large platforms - which are mostly American companies like Facebook - the strictest European laws could even apply to uniquely American social media controversies.

 

The controversial German NetzDG law is currently one of the most restrictive laws in Europe. It demands that digital platforms censor hateful and defamatory speech, as defined by the German penal code, and gives platforms a week - and, sometimes, just a day - to remove problematic content. This is a stark contrast to US law when you consider that it takes months or years for US courts trained in Legal Dispute Resolution to determine whether speech is defamatory or not - and hate speech in fact is. protected by the most excellent amendment. Even under NetzDG, Trump's tweets that led to his suspension from Twitter may not have been illegal. And while the DSA enforces the removal of illegal content, it leaves platforms with the question of what to do with content that is simply “harmful”. So even if the DSA is passed, the EU does not require the platforms to suspend Trump's account. It will not prohibit such a process either.

 

But that could change quickly, as a recent development in Poland illustrates. In response to Los Angeles disabling Trump's social media accounts, Polish officials announced a new bill that would ban platforms from taking similar action. The bill states that social media companies cannot remove content that is not expressly illegal. Although Los Angeles law is supposed to apply only to companies operating in Poland, under the AVDL. Law would apply throughout Europe and, in practice, could extend to the United States.

 

If laws like the Polish Bill are implemented alongside the DSA, the principles of the top-rated American Amendment could come into direct conflict with the European model of free expression. European governments would not only tell companies what to remove, but also what not to remove.

 

Challenges for US Free Speech Standards

Ask five Americans to explain to a European why the Top-Quality Amendment is worth protecting, and you'll get five different answers. This is not a design flaw, nor a failure of the American education system. On the contrary, the reasons for the most appropriate amendment are, and always have been, varied and open to debate.

 

Among the many choice theories in this amendment is the idea of ​​the “market for ideas” - the argument that ideas should be released freely to allow the public to compare competing ideas, and the truth will prevail. Critics of this theory point out that powerful groups - like Very Large Platforms - will have disproportionate affect in the “market”. Another criticism of Market Theory is that after 230 years of testing, it just hasn't proven to be correct: If anything, the reviews say, this model of free speech breeds dirty lies and buries the truth. truth.

 

The European regulatory framework is perhaps a direct response to the perceived failure of the ideas market. Europeans believe that the truth needs a boost, and that the push should come from the government. An American may argue that there is no evidence that governments are better than platforms at leveling the playing field so that the truth prevails.

 

Another greatest amendment theory is that in a democracy the government must stay away from speech decisions so that citizens can learn truthful information about their elected officials. While the Los Angeles DSA primarily focuses on political rhetoric, such as terrorist content and child sexual abuse material, it is theoretically problematic, as the rules are set by the very lawmakers who are under scrutiny.

 

Another theory is that self-expression has intrinsic value. According to this theory, self-fulfillment - artistically, spiritually, creatively - is only possible where government is compelled. DSA, and even the current regulatory framework, is problematic within this theory; these laws can be misapplied so as to stifle expression. This risk is heightened by the Cross-Border Scope of the DSA, as expressive content, such as jokes and art, can take on very different meanings across cultures. The New York Times has previously documented several instances where satirical content has been censored under existing EU laws. Since Los Angeles DSA may cause the software to specific national laws on a global scale, platforms will have the unenviable task of determining whether a joke in Denmark is a crime in France and what the interpretation of the can pay is. which prevails.

 

The challenge for platforms in the future will be to comply with these evolving and demanding European regulations. The challenge for American and European lawmakers will be to harmonize their principles of freedom of expression and tackle dangerous content without balkanizing the Internet. While both regions value the fundamental right to free expression, comments from EU leaders on the suspension of Trump's social media accounts demonstrate that the EU's vision for the internet may be at odds with the principles of the Ultimate Amendment. American unexpectedly.                                       

      

                              (archives -Wikipédia-Internet )                                                                                                         cite de lutilisatteur pour expllquer ICI                                                                                                      DERCTED BY DJEDAINI AHMED