13 Amendments of Maria GRAPINI related to 2020/2022(INI)
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to introduce a harmonised approach addressing obligations imposed on intermediaries, in order to avoid fragmentation of the internal market; stresses that any measure related to fundamental rights should be carefully balanced and take into account the possible impact on the functioning of the internal market and ensuring consumer protection, and calls on the Commission to avoid the ‘export’ of national regulations and instead to propose the most efficient and effective solutions for the internal market as a whole;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. States that limited liability provisions as set out in the e-Commerce Directive1 must be maintained and strengthenpreserved in the Digital Services Act, particularly in order to protect freedom of expressionundamental rights and the freedom to provide services; underlines the importance of these protections to the growth of European SMEs, protection of consumers and users' safety; _________________ 1 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 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, p. 1.
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Recalls that content removal mechanisms that are used outside the guarantees of a due process contravene Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. States that Digital Services Act should maintain the ban on general monitoring obligation under the Article 15 of the current e-Commerce Directive;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses that the Digital Services Act must take into account the General Data Protection Regulation;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recognises that SMEs and large players have differing capabilities with regard to the moderation of contentdo not have the same potential as large players with regard to the moderation of content, that is why there is need for a greater support for SMEs in the digitization process; warns that overburdening businesses with disproportionate new obligations could further hinder the growth of SMEs and require recourse to automatic filtering tools, which may often lead to the removal of legal content;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes the significant differences between digital services and calls for the avoidance of a one-size-fits-all approach; and thus proposes that intermediaries’ duties of care should differ depending on their business model; intermediaries whose interventions may affect users fundamental freedoms should be maximally protected from liability while intermediaries that enable commercial transactions, including advertising, should be subject to a stronger obligation to take active care in order to protect consumers and provide security and trust;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls the fact that misinformative and harmful content is not always illegal; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a well-defined notice-and-takedown processharmonised, transparent and legally enforceable notice-and-action mechanism; supports an intensive dialogue between authorities and relevant stakeholders with the aim of deepening the soft law approach based on good practices such as the EU-wide Code of Practice on Disinformation, in order to further tackle misinformation;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes the proliferation of fake news and disinformation with false or misleading content, and consumers scams by means of unsafe or counterfeit products; calls on the Commission to keep working and exploring new ways to combat fake news while preserving fundamental rights;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for the introduction of counter-notice tools to allow content owners to defend their rights adequately and in a timely manner when notified of any takedown; underlines its view that delegating the responsibility to set boundaries on freedom of speech to private companies is unacceptable and creates risks for both citizens and businesses, neither of which are qualified to take such decisions.that if the redress and counter-notice procedure have stablished that the notified activity or information is not illegal, the online intermediary should restore the removed content without undue delay or allow for the re-upload by the user, without prejudice to the platform's terms of service; outlines that fundamental rights should be protected more effectively by introducing more transparency reports and out-of-court dispute settlement mechanism to help resolve complaints of affected users;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Considers that the introduction of digital services has to be done at the same time with the establishment of some measures which aim to develop the knowledge and skills of citizens and small businesses on digitization, in order to ensure that all citizens have access to these services;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Notes that the new Digital Services Act should also address the challenges algorithms present in terms of ensuring non-discrimination, transparency and explainability, as well as liability; points out the need to monitor algorithms and to asses associated risks, to use high quality and unbiased datasets, as well as to help individuals acquire access to diverse content, opinions, high quality products and services;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Notes that the lack of access to digital services for certain categories of citizens would lead to the exclusion and violation of equal market and information access rights;