14 Amendments of Alexandra GEESE related to 2020/2022(INI)
Amendment 8 #
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 ofensure that all EU citizens are protected and ensure a high level of protection across the internal market, 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 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recognises that SMEs and large players have differing capabilities with regard to the moderation of content; warns that overburdening businesses with disproportionate new obligations could further hinder the growth of SMEs and require recours; recalls that there should be tno automatic filtering tools, which may often lead to the removal of legal contentgeneral monitoring and that the right to fair trial and effective redress should be ensured;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls the fact that mdisinformativeon and potentially harmful content is not always illegal; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a well-defined, harmonised, transparent and accessible notice-and-takedowaction process for illegal content; supports an intensive dialogue between authorities and relevant stakeholders with the aim of deepening the soft law approach based on good practicesevaluating the effectiveness of the soft law approach such as the EU-wide Code of Practice on Disinformation, in order to further tackle misinformation and other categories of potentially harmful content;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for the introduction of counter-notice tools to allow content ownuploaders to defend their rights adequately and in a timely manner when notified of any takedown of allegedly illegal content; underlines its view that delegating the responsibility to set boundaries on freedom of speechrestrict the right to freedom of expression of online users to private companies is unacceptable and creates risks for both citizenindividuals and businesses, neither of which are qualified to take such decisions.; demands the guarantee of effective remedies and possibility of judicial review to ensure that accessible, affordable, independent and effective procedures are available to all parties;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls for the introduction of transparency and accountability requirements regarding the decision- making processes for content flagging for content hosting providers and providers of automated content recognition tools, including the public documentation of, at minima, the existence and the functioning of content recognition technologies ; the transparency requirements for content hosting providers should include the number of all received notices, the reasons for determining the legality of content or how it infringes terms of service, the concrete time frames for notifying the uploader, the number of appeals they received and how they were resolved and the number of erroneous takedowns;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Calls for transparency obligations for recommendation systems of content hosting providers which should take the form of real-time, high-level, anonymised data access through public APIs and include public documentation of recommendation outputs and their audiences, content-specific ranking decisions and other interventions by the platform as well as the organisational structures that control such systems;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Calls for a risk assessment obligation for automated content flagging tools employed by content hosting providers, which would work in a co- regulatory fashion and would be conducted in regular time frames prescribed by law;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)
Paragraph 6 d (new)
6d. Calls for the establishment of an EU body tasked with monitoring and ensuring compliance with the provisions of future regulation, including the screening of transparency reports and carrying out audits of algorithms provided to and employed by content hosting providers for content flagging and recommendation systems;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 e (new)
Paragraph 6 e (new)
6e. Calls for the establishment of socially representative and divers, in particular gender balanced, co-regulatory social media councils as a multi- stakeholder mechanism, which would provide for an open, transparent, accountable and participatory forum to address content moderation principles;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 f (new)
Paragraph 6 f (new)
6f. Calls on Member States to establish independent dispute settlement bodies which would be tasked to settle disputes between uploaders, notifiers and content hosting providers;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 g (new)
Paragraph 6 g (new)
6g. Calls on the Commission to include the principle of “freedom of expression by design” whereby the content hosting provider shall, both at the time of the design stage of the service and at the time of the provision of the service itself, implement appropriate technical and organisational measures in an effective manner and integrate the necessary safeguards into the provision of the service in order to meet the requirements of any future regulation and protect consumer rights;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 h (new)
Paragraph 6 h (new)
6h. Calls on the Commission to introduce minimum standards for the internal rules, such as terms and conditions or community guidelines, of content hosting providers and providers of content moderation tools to provide for safeguards for fundamental rights, in particular with regard to transparency, accessibility, fairness, predictability and non-discriminatory enforcement;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 i (new)
Paragraph 6 i (new)
6i. Recalls that profiling coupled with targeted advertisements not only undermines the democratic framework, but also leads to an unfair competitive advantage for dominant private actors collecting huge amounts of data and therefore calls on the Commission to limit targeted advertisement in order to create a level playing field for SMEs;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 j (new)
Paragraph 6 j (new)
6j. Recalls that the choice of algorithmic tools for recommendation systems raises accountability and transparency concerns; therefore stresses the need to guarantee the right of users to opt out from recommended and personalised services;