52 Amendments of Tudor CIUHODARU related to 2020/2022(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3
Citation 3
— having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 6, Article 7, Article 8, Article 11, Article 13, Article 221, Article 22, Article 23, Article 24, Article 25 and Article 246 thereof,
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)
Citation 6 a (new)
— having regard to Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive)3a, _________________ 3a OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1–24
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)
Citation 7 a (new)
— having regard to the judgement of the Court of Justice of 24 November 2011 in case C-70/105a, _________________ 5aJudgement of the Court of Justice of 24 November 2011, Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM)
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)
Recital -A (new)
-A. whereas fundamental rights, such as protection of privacy and personal data, the principle of non-discrimination, as well as freedom of expression and information, need to be ingrained at the core of a successful and durable European policy on digital services; whereas these rights need to be seen both in the letter of the law, as well as the spirit of their implementation;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. recital -Aa whereas the trust of users can only be gained by digital services that respect their fundamental rights, thus ensuring both uptake of services, as well as a competitive advantage and stable business models for companies;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the privacy rules in the electronic communication sector, as set out in the Directive concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, are currently under revision;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the amount of all types of user- generated content, including harmful and illegal content, shared via cloud services or online platforms has increased exponentially;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the use of personal data for the purposes of individual profiling, and its subsequent repurposing, even when seemingly innocuous data is collected from the digital traces of individuals, can be mined in a way that can generate insights that can enable very intimate personal information to be inferred at a very high level of accuracy, especially when these data are merged with other data sets;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas social media and other content distribution platforms utilise profiling techniques to target and distribute their content, as well as advertisements; whereas the automated algorithms decide how to handle, prioritise, distribute and delete third-party content on online platforms, including during political and electoral campaigns;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
Cc. whereas the proliferation of disinformation, even propaganda online, has been aided by platforms whose very business model is based on profiting from collection and analysis of user data; whereas consequently promoting spreadable, sensationalist content forms part of their business logic, and pushes them to generate more traffic and ‘clicks’, and, in turn, generate more profiling data and thus more profit;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C d (new)
Recital C d (new)
Cd. whereas the Cambridge Analytica and Facebook scandals revealed how user data had been used to micro-target certain voters with political advertising, and at times, even with targeted disinformation, therefore showing the danger of opaque data processing operations of online platforms;
Amendment 31 #
Ce. whereas the widespread use of algorithms for content filtering and content removal processes also raises rule of law concerns, questions of legality, legitimacy and proportionality;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the political approach to tackle harmful and illegal content online in the EU has mainly focused on voluntary cooperation thus faris based on court order mandated takedowns, but a growing number of Member States are adopting further national legislation to address illegal content;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas some forms of harmful content may be legal, yet detrimental to society or democracy, yet be legal, with examples such as opaque political advertising and disinformation on COVID-19 causes and remedies;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas a pure self-regulatory approach of platforms does not provide legitimacy or adequate transparency and proper information to public authorities, civil society and users on how platforms address illegal and harmful contentcontent and content that is deleted against violations of terms and conditions; whereas such an approach does not guarantee compliance with fundamental rights; and creates a risk of excessive interference with the right of freedom of expression and creates a problematic situation where law enforcement responsibilities are handed over to private parties;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas regulatory oversight and supervision of platforms lacks horizontalis sector-specific in the EU; whereas further and more comprehensive coordination between the different oversight bodies across the EU would be beneficial;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the lack of comparable, robust public data on the prevalence and both court mandated and self-regulatory removal of illegal and harmful content online creates a deficit of transparency and accountability;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas child sexual exploitation online is one of the forms of illegal content shaped by technological developments; whereas the vast amount of child sexual abuse material circulating online poses serious challenges for detection, investigation and, most of all, victim identification efforts;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas according to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), jurisprudence host providers may have recourse to automated search tools and technologies to assess if content is equivalent to content previously declared unlawful, and should thuss long as it does not result in monitoring generally the information which it stores, or in actively seeking facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity, as provided for in Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31; whereas such content should be removed following an court order from a Member State;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)
Recital L a (new)
La. whereas a trusted electronic identification is elementary to ensure secure access to digital services and to carry out electronic transactions in a safer way; whereas currently only 15 Member States have notified an electronic identity scheme for cross-border recognition in the framework of the Regulation (EU) 910/2014;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that illegal content online should be tackled with the same rigour as illegal content offlineis the same as illegal content offline; takes therefore the position that any legally mandated content moderation measure in the Digital Services Act should concern only illegal content, as it is defined in European or national law, and the legislative text should not include any legally vague and undefined terms, such as “harmful content”, as targeting such content would put fundamental rights and freedom of speech at serious risk and put the service providers in a legally unclear position;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Paragraph -1. Underlines that the modernisation of current e-Commerce rules can inevitably affect fundamental rights, including the protection of privacy and personal data, the freedom of expression and information, equality and non-discrimination, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of the arts and sciences, and the right to an effective remedy; therefore urges the Commission to be extremely vigilant in its approach and also integrate international human rights standards into its revision;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Paragraph -1a. Notes how the current digital ecosystem encourages also problematic behaviour, such as hate speech and disinformation; is concerned how promoting controversial content has become the key to the targeted advertisement-based business models, where sensational and polarising content maximises the screen time of users, generating more profiling data, more advertising hours, and therefore more profits; underlines how this type of a business model can have very intrusive and negative effects, not only on individuals and their fundamental rights, but societies as a whole;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes in the clear economic benefits of a functioning digital single market for the EU and its Member States; stresses the important obligation to ensure a fair digital ecosystem in which fundamental rights and, especially data protection are respected; calls for a minimum level of intervention based on the principles of necessity and proportionality, privacy and non- discrimination are at its core;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Deems it necessary that illegal content is removed swiftly and consistently in order to address crimes and fundamental rights violation, through a clear and harmonised notice-and-action procedure with the necessary safeguards in place, such as transparency of the process, the right to appeal and access to effective judicial redress; considers that voluntary codes of conduct only partially address the issue;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that illegal content online should not only bebe just removed by online platforms, but should be followed up by law enforcement and, where needed, the judiciary; finds, in this regard, that a key issue in some Member States is not that they just have unresolved cases but rather unopened ones; calls for barriers to filing complaints with competent authorities to be removed; is convinced that, given the borderless nature of the internet and the fast dissemination of illegal content online, cooperation between service providers and national competent authorities should be improvedalso unopened ones;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Is convinced that, given the borderless nature of the internet and the fast dissemination of illegal content online, cooperation between service providers and national competent authorities should be improved;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Acknowledges the fact that, while the illegal nature of certain types of content can be easily established, the decision is more difficult for other types of content as it requires contextualisation; warns that some automated tools are not sophisticated enough to take contextualisation into account, which could lead to unnecessary restrictions being placed on the freedom of expressionreminds in this regard of the incapacity of current automated tools in grasping the importance of context for specific pieces of content, underlines that algorithms are not currently capable of critical analysis, and takes therefore the view that the Digital Services Act should not contain any obligation for compulsory use of automated tools in content moderation; believes that any voluntary automated measures put in place by the content hosting platforms should be subject to extensive human oversight and to full transparency of design and performance;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Strongly believes that the current EU legal framework governing digital services should be updated with a view to addressing the challenges posed by new technologies such as the prevalence of all- encompassing profiling and algorithmic decision-making that permeates all areas of life, and ensuring legal clarity and respect for fundamental rights; considers that the reform should build on the solid foundation of and full compliance with existing EU law, especially the General Data Protection Regulation and the Directive on privacy and electronic communications;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Highlights that the practical capacity of individuals to understand and navigate the complexity of the data ecosystems in which they are embedded is extremely limited, as is their ability to identify whether the information they receive and services they use are made available to them on the same terms as to other users; Calls on the Commission therefore to place transparency and non- discrimination at the heart of the Digital Services Act;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Deems it indispensable to have the widest-possiblefull harmonisation of rules on liability exemptions and content moderation at EU level to guarantee the respect of fundamental rights and the freedoms of users across the EU; expresses its concern that recent national laws to tackle hate speech and disinformation lead to a fragmentation of rules;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls, to this end, for legislative proposals that keepthat the digital single market is kept open and competitive by requiring digital service providers to apply effective, coherent, transparent and fair procedures andwith robust procedural safeguards to remove illegal content in line with European values; firmly believes that this should be harmonised within the digital single marketvia a harmonised notice-and-action procedure in line with European legislation;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes, in this regard, that online platforms that are actively hosting or moderating content should bear more, yet proportionate, responsibility for the infrastructure they provide and the content on it; emphasises that this should be achieved without resorting toit is crucial for online platforms to have clarity provided for by setting clear rules, requirements and safeguards for a harmonised notice-and-action procedure; emphasises that any measure put in place for the removal of illegal content cannot constitute or imply a general monitoring requirements;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Highlights that this should include rules on the notice-and-action mechanisms and requirements for platforms to take proactive measures that are proportionate to their scale of reach and operational capacities in order to address the appearance of illegal content on their services; supports a balanced duty-of-care approach andSupports a clear chain of responsibility to avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens for the platforms and unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on fundamental rights, including the freedom of expression;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses the need for appropriate safeguards and due process obligations, including human oversight and verification, in addition to counter notice procedures, to ensure that removal or blocking decisions are accuratelegal, well- founded and respect fundamental rights; recalls that the possibility of judicial rwhile counter-notice proceduress should be mad, complaint mechanisms and out-of-court dispute settlements can be availuable to satisfy the right to effectiveols in protecting fundamental rights of the users of digital services, they cannot preclude access to effective judicial redress and remedy;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Supports limited liability for contentexemption for all types of intermediaries and the country of origin principle, butand considers improved coordination for removal requests between national competent authorities to be essential; emphasises that such orders should be subject to legal safeguards in order to prevent abuse and ensure full respect of fundamental rights; stresses that sanctions should apply only to those service providers that fail to comply with legitimate orders;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Believes that the terms of services of digital service providers should be clear, transparent and fair; deplores the fact that some terms of servrecalls that any take- down-notices from content platforms do not allow law enforcement to use non-personal accounts, which poses a threat both to possible investigations and to personal safetyan authority has to always be based on law, not on the terms of service of the service providers;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Underlines that certain types of legal, yet harmful, content should also be addressed to ensure a fair digital ecosystem; expects guidelines to include increased transparency rules on content moderation or political advertising policy to ensure that removals and the blocking of harmful content are limited to the absolute necessarye need to regulate content curation and tracking-based targeted advertisement through giving more choice and control to users; emphasises that users should be able to choose to opt out completely of any content curation, decide whether to opt in to tracking, and have more options on the way content is ranked to them, including a ranking outside their ordinary content consumption habits; strongly believes that the design and performance of such recommendation systems should be subject to full transparency, presented in a user-friendly manner;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Highlights how the personalisation of informational environments that data- driven profiling makes possible brings with it new capacities to manipulate individuals in subtle, yet highly effective ways; underlines that when the profiling is deployed at scale for political micro targeting to manipulate voting behaviour, it can seriously undermine the foundations of democracy; therefore expects the Commission to provide guidelines on the use of such persuasive digital technologies in electoral campaigns and political advertising policy;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15b. Is concerned of platforms and services that deliberately lock in their users onto that specific platform, thus amplifying their dominant market power and their ability to profile their users even more thoroughly, creating extremely invasive and revealing profiles of their users; calls therefore on the Commission to guarantee the interoperability of digital services; considers in this regard the application programming interfaces (APIs), enabling a user to interconnect between platforms and to import content moderation rules on the content they view on a platform, to be useful tools in bringing true interoperability to users and thus increasing their options to choose between different kinds of recommendation systems and services;
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)
Paragraph 15 c (new)
15c. Notes that policies for monetisation of content affect what kind of content is seen by users and therefore finally also what kind of content will be uploaded by users; calls therefore for online content hosting platforms to be required to have transparent, non- discriminatory content demonetisation policies in order to guarantee fully the right to freedom of expression online;
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Deems that accountability- andUnderlines the wedge between the speed and capacity of machines relative to the capacity of humans to monitor these machines; therefore deems that accountability always lies with the human overseers - and calls for evidence-based policy making, requiresing robust data on the prevalence and removal of illegal content online, in order to ensure a transparent system that can be trusted by all;
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls, in this regard, for a regular public reporting for large commercial obnligation for platforms, proportionate to their scale of reach and operational capacitiesne platforms to make their procedures and decisions to remove content publicly available;
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls, moreover, for a regular public reporting obligation for national authorities on their requests for deletion of illegal content from digital platforms;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Expresses its concern regarding the fragmentation of public oversight and supervision of platforms and the frequentdocumented lack of financial and human resources for the supervision and oversight bodies needed to properly fulfil their tasks; calls for increased cooperation with regard to regulatory oversight of digital services;
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Considers that in order to guarantee proper enforcement of the Digital Services Act, the oversight of compliance with this Act should be entrusted in an independent authority, while any decisions relating to content should always remain with the judiciary; emphasises in this regard that sanctioning for non-compliance with the Digital Services Act should be based on an assessment of a clearly defined set of factors, such as proportionality, technical and organisational measures and negligence, and the resulting sanctions should be based on a percentage of the annual global turnover of a company;
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 257 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Emphasises the indispensability of agreed standards of essential security in cyberspace in order for digital services to provide their full benefits to citizens; notes therefore the urgent need for Member States to take coordinated action to ensure basic cyber hygiene and to prevent avoidable dangers in cyberspace, including through legislative measures;
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)
Paragraph 23 b (new)
23b. Stresses that the only way for digital services to achieve their full potential is to enable users to be identified unambiguously in an equivalent manner to offline services; notes that online identification can be improved by enforcing eIDAS Regulation’s cross- border interoperability of electronic identifications across the European Union; reminds that Member States and European institutions have to guarantee that the electronic identifications are secure, enable data minimisation and comply with all other aspects of GDPR;