The problem lies not in the intentionality of the platforms but in the functioning of An urgent need their procedures. These are private actors, subject to both liability rules (such as not disseminating violent or child pornography images) and very significant reputational risks . The image of a social network can deteriorate very quickly, Facebook being perhaps the best example. “Since the costs . These of changing providers are very low, the consequences can be catastrophic,” he warns. “The pressure from organized interests” (economic, political, etc.) is very strong. This results in the establishment of a “certain form of conservatism” and radicalism on the part of the platforms.
Regarding filtering, there are generally “more removals than necessary
and “appeal procedures are very difficult to implement .” For example, Gustave oil and gas email list Courbet’s painting “The Origin of the World” is systematically remove from platforms because algorithms (or moderators, depending on the case) do . Thesenot see it as a work of art, but as a form of nudity. This censorship raises questions, because a private regulation comes into direct conflict with the rule of law by denying freedom of expression. “Filtering prevents debate,” asserts Eric Brousseau. The near immediacy of these actions is problematic, as the rule of law operates on longer timescales. Debating the removal of content is impossible here. He concludes that “these ‘traditional’ procedures appear unsuitable today .And it’s not up to them to make this decision. It’s a decision that’s a matter for social debate.”
Similarly, public authorities have extremely limited means of action
Their mandates are territorially limited (while the platforms are global) and their technical skills produce simulate worlds and characters are extremely limite compared to those of the platforms. Since regulation cannot be carried out by either of them in a decorrelate manner, Eric Brousseau proposes a new form of governance based on three axes:al that society “evolves its social norms“ . In short, it is about creating new ethics rather than going backwards .
Reviewing institutional design
It is in these terms of “institutional design” that Célia Zolynski , professor at the email data Sorbonne Law School, developed her argument. According to her, there is a need for systemic regulation of the attention economy An urgent need that involves . These data, operators and users, similar to the GDPR model . The GDPR logic is interesting because it combines the accountability of operators and the power of users to act. The objective is to articulate hard law and soft law in a logic of ‘compliance’ with different standards that would have the advantage of addressing the issue in a transversal way to question the capture and valorization of our attention.”