2020/2022(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Points out that fundamental rights constitute an objective system of values which ensures that fundamental communication freedoms are not alterable, including by private-law agreements or business terms and conditions; points out that consumer protection, user safety, the option of online anonymity and freedom of speech must be at the core of protecting the fundamental rights; stresses the importance of helping consumers and users take greater control of and responsibility for their own data and identity;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Points out that freedom of the arts and sciences are not alterable and therefore must not be compromised by any new legislation;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Emphasises that content, which is legal and legally shared under Union or national law, has to stay online and that any removal of such content must not lead to the identification of individual users nor to the processing of personal data;

Amendment 12 #

1b. Points out that media ecosystem suffers from disruptive effects of online platforms; emphasises that public authorities have a positive obligation to adopt a legal framework, which fosters the development of independent and pluralistic media;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls for all proactive protective measures which might at the same time be detrimental to fundamental rights to remain tasks for the State that are subject to thorough judicial review and for no public- authority tasks to be transferred to private- sector firms; stresses the need to comply with the overarching legislative framework, to be subjected to judicial oversight, and not merely left to the discretion of private sector firms; calls for establishing a clear EU-wide framework for content blocking with clear constraints, while promoting transparency on what content is blocked and why; calls for balanced solutions regarding content removals with cooperation between platforms, regulative authorities, fact- checkers and users; stresses that sharing GDPR-compliant data on illegal activity with the law enforcement and other authorities should be a priority for platforms in addition to their own effective and appropriate safeguards;

Amendment 14 #

Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls for all protective measures which might at the same time be detrimental to fundamental rights to remain tasks for the State that are subject to thorough judicial review and for no public- authority tasks to be transferred to private- sector firms; considers that these sector- specific rules may ensure unhindered access to media services and content, as well as advance freedom and pluralism of the media;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls for all protective measures which might at the same time be detrimental to fundamental rights to remain tasks for the State that are subject to thorough judicial review and for no public-authority tasks to be transferred to private-sector firmto be applicable in respect of fundamental rights and recalls the obligation for platforms as well as other online services, to immediately remove illegal and unlawful content of their platform and services, notwithstanding the surveillance role of public authorities;

Amendment 16 #

Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Loucas FOURLAS, Peter POLLÁK, Asim ADEMOV, Isabel BENJUMEA BENJUMEA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls for all protective measures ~~which might at the same time be detrimental to fundamental rights to remain tasks for the State that are subject to thorough judicial review and for no public-authority tasks to b~~to fully respect fundamental rights and recalls that such mandatory protective measures operate within a legislative tfra~~nsferred to private-sector firms~~mework and are subject to judicial oversight;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls for all ~~protective~~ measures which might at the same time be detrimental to fundamental rights to remain tasks for the State that are subject to thorough judicial review and for no public- authority tasks to be transferred to private- sector firms;

Amendment 19 #

Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN, Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Loucas FOURLAS, Peter POLLÁK, Milan ZVER, Asim ADEMOV, Isabel BENJUMEA BENJUMEA, François-Xavier BELLAMY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that transparency reports are made available by platform operators, which contain information about the number of cases where content was misidentified as illegal or as illegally shared and that competent authorities should make available information about the number of cases where removals lead to the investigation and the prosecution of crimes;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Points out that fundamental rights constitute an objective system of values which ensures that fundamental communication freedoms ~~are not alterable~~, rights to property, as well as its protection, are not alterable and must be balanced with one another, including by private-law agreements or business terms and conditions;

Amendment 20 #

Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Points out that some harmful content or partially accurate information may not necessarily be illegal; notes that automatic filtering tools may lead to filtering out of legal content; considers it necessary to ensure that content owners can defend their rights to a sufficient extent, when their content has been removed;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Stresses that any monitoring of their content applied by online platform and other services should be submitted to rigorous and transparent standards, known by their users, and enable an effective right to appeal decisions, first to the online platform or service, but also to a public authority;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Suggests that special attention should be paid to the protection of children and young people and that this protection should also be safeguarded under data protection law and calls for online services for the protection of children and young people to be subject to the highest data protection restrictions;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Reiterates the work of the Human Rights Committees of the United Nations in further elaborating interpretatively the texts of the UN Human Rights Conventions, in order be fit for the digital era, along with the work of the Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Points out that soft coordination, support or supplementary measures, such as codes of conduct or self-regulation and co-regulation, may be efficient regulatory means, provided that government agencies monitor their impact and legal provision is made for State regulation where they are proved to be ineffective, since they often allow a swift response to changing circumstances also involving non-EU participants;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Points out that enforcement is in principle the responsibility of the national regulatory authorities also in cross-border cases and should not be relocated to the European level without good reason; further believes that the idea of the country of origin principle will be strengthened if the national regulatory authorities have effective enforcement tools and efficient cross-border cooperation procedures in place; at European level, this should be flanked by swift and efficient dispute settlement procedures that ensure lasting legal peace;

Amendment 26 #

Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN, Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Loucas FOURLAS, Peter POLLÁK, Milan ZVER, Asim ADEMOV, Isabel BENJUMEA BENJUMEA, François-Xavier BELLAMY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for recognition of the fact that services developed in the EU which guarantee effective and comprehensive privacy protection and maximum digital freedom represent an advantage in global competition that should not be underestimated, and calls on the Commission to promote their development in a more targeted manner; calls for European values to be upheld in a safe digital environment, promoting diversity of opinion, net neutrality, freedom of speech and access to information; calls for clear, uniform rules, for more platform and advertising industries to apply their principles on platform liability, illegal or harmful content, algorithmic accountability, transparent advertising and fight against dissemination of disinformation, hate speech and fake or bot accounts, to preserve fundamental people rights and freedom;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Calls for recognition of the fact~~Strongly believes that services developed in the EU which guarantee effective and comprehensive privacy protection ~~and maximum digital freedom~~, intellectual property protection, the promotion of cultural diversity and freedom of information and communication represent an advantage in global competition that should not be underestimated, and calls on the Commission to systematically promote their development in a more targeted manner;

Amendment 28 #

Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for recognition of the fact that those services developed in the EU which guarantee effective and comprehensive privacy protection and maximum digital freedom represent an advantage in global competition that should not be underestimated, and calls on the Commission to promote their development in a more targeted manner via clear and efficient solutions fit for digital age;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for recognition of the fact that services developed in the EU which guarantee effective and comprehensive privacy and data protection and promotes maximum digital ~~freedom~~neutrality represent an advantage in global competition that should not be underestimated, and calls on the Commission to promote their development in a more targeted manner;

Amendment 3 #

Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Points out that fundamental rights constitute an objective ~~system of values which ensures that fundamental~~and comprehensive system of values and principles, such as the right to privacy of communications, freedom~~s are not alterable~~ of expression and media freedom and pluralism, and recalls that these freedoms should be respected, including by private-law agreements or business terms and conditions;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for recognition of the fact that services developed in the EU which guarantee effective and comprehensive privacy protection and m~~aximum~~ost extensive digital freedoms represent an advantage in global competition that should not be underestimated, and calls on the Commission to promote their development in a more targeted manner;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Ensures that private agreements between artists and companies do not contravene the fundamental rights of the artists, creators and all personnel employed in the creative and cultural sectors, respecting their work and their intellectual property, both financially and ethically; highlights the need to ensure a fair remuneration from all activities entailing creativity for all stakeholders involved in the process, and with due regard to their right to collective bargaining;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that any new obligations on platforms should be proportional to their market share and financial capacity, in order to encourage fair competition and promote innovation; believes that such approach would help strengthen information and media plurality and cultural and linguistic diversity;

Amendment 33 #

Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN, Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Loucas FOURLAS, Peter POLLÁK, Milan ZVER, Asim ADEMOV, Isabel BENJUMEA BENJUMEA, François-Xavier BELLAMY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for sector-specific rules that serve to realise society-wide objectives and give tangible expression to them for certain sectors, such as the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) and the Copyright Directive, to take precedence over general rules., in order to ensure authors' and artists' rights in the digital environment;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for sector-specific rules that serve to realise society-wide objectives and give tangible expression to them for certain sectors, such as the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), to take precedence over general rules. to ensure legal security, before, if necessary, any reassessment takes place, that may follow the introduction of any new general rule;

Amendment 35 #

Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for sector-specific rules that serve to realise society-wide objectives and give tangible expression to them for certain sectors, such as the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) or the Copyright Directive, to take precedence over general rules.

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Recognises that the disinformation Code of Practice (CoP) has helped to structure a dialogue with platforms and regulatory bodies; stresses however, that this is not sufficient; calls for mandatory «notice and takedown» orders, requiring that illegal content to be removed from platforms, including certain types of racism and xenophobia from their sites, with fines for non-compliance; calls for uniform and detailed rules for the removal of illegal content, with specific differentiation between illegal content and harmful content on principles of transparency and equal treatment, as well as to prevent removal of content which is not illegal; calls for large social platforms to be obliged to verify flagged content and to reply to uploaders, with a reasoned decision for blocking their content, while preventing abuse of notice services;

Amendment 37 #

Elżbieta KRUK, Andrey SLABAKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Stresses out that any rule on content moderation for service providers must ensure full respect for freedom of expression, which according to Art. 11 CFREU, includes "freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart Information and ideas without interference by public authorities and regardless of frontiers'', and that access to a wide variety of opinions contributes to the development of open and democratic societies even when such views are controversial or unpalatable;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Stresses the importance of preventing the deployment of mass surveillance and identification technologies, without fully understanding their impacts on people, freedoms and fundamental rights, and without ensuring that these systems are fully compliant with data protection and privacy law as well as human rights;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Emphasises that the sharing of personal data and the processing of data for the purposes of the new Digital Single Act must respect the safeguards set out by the GDPR and the rules of the protection of data put in place in the Union; highlights that there is no need for any 'lex specialis' derogation from the General Rules of Data Protection;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Points out that fundamental rights constitute an objective system of values which ensures that fundamental communication freedoms and property, as well as its protection, are not alterable, including by private-law agreements or business terms and conditions;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Stresses the need to give citizens more control over how their personal data is managed and protected online, while also placing more responsibility on businesses in their data protection practices;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Highlights the need to ensure that the collection and processing of all personal data, which does not fall under the scope of Directive (EU) 2016/680 on the Protection of natural persons with regard to processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purpose of law enforcement, or under the scope of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), is done in accordance with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality, as established by Article 9 of the Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (Convention No. 108);

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote cooperation between the public and private sectors as well as academia, in order to reinforce knowledge sharing, the promotion of safety education and training, data privacy, ethical implications, and respect for human rights, relating to the use of digital technology, robotics and Artificial Intelligence (AI);

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)

4d. Believes that platform liability should be tailored, in order to respect the size of the operator and a clear distinction on the platforms' engagement with the content based on clear and verifiable criteria and aspects, such as editorial functions, actual knowledge and a certain degree of control; furthermore believes that any system proposed, should be accompanied by robust set of fundamental rights safeguards and adequate independent and impartial public oversight;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)

4d. Stresses that, regardless of social benefits provided by new technologies, digital services and data-driven technologies, including Artificial Intelligence (AI), addressing and analysing potential risks to democratic values, the rule of law and fundamental rights must be a top priority;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 e (new)

4e. Strongly believes that the issue of platform workers must be addressed by a specific, dedicated, labour-oriented piece of legislation and not in an act dealing with digital services; suggests that platform operators should be responsible as employers for platform workers, and thus they should be liable to provide quality work, individual labour rights, social protection training and fulfilling health and safety at work requirements; reiterates that, in case of a provision of a legal presumption that platform workers are workers, it would ensure that requisite responsibility of platform operators as employers, to guarantee labour rights and to contribute to social security for platform workers;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 e (new)

4e. Stresses that in many cases, fundamental rights in the Union are often under threat, and that they are already being unjustifiably, disproportionately and unlawfully violated in the name of security, public health and public interest; stresses that the principles of necessity and proportionality should always be at the forefront, whenever there is an interference with fundamental rights;

Amendment 47 #

Elżbieta KRUK, Andrey SLABAKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 f (new)

4f. Highlights the need to find an effective way to enforce properly and appropriately intellectual property rights thus fostering cultural and creative sectors without interfering with freedom of expression; believes that this balance should include proactive measures to be employed when necessary, in order to ensure that illegal and harmful content is not only taken down from online platforms but also that it stays down;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 f (new)

4f. Stresses the need to update, modify, increase the comprehensiveness, clarity, and transparency of EU and national rules, while at the same time, cutting unnecessary and outdated regulations rather than adding more regulation;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 g (new)

4g. Recognises the need to define companies' human rights responsibilities in line with the ''respect, protect, remedy'' framework set out under the UN Guiding Principles and Business and Human Rights, which should be promptly turned into legally binding standards of International Law, by requiring in particular a human rights approach to the development of terms of service and Community standards as well as policies governing access to and use of their platform;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Points out that fundamental rights ~~constitute an objective system of values which ensures that fundamental communication freedoms~~, such as freedom of expression and information, constitute an objective system of values and are not alterable, including by private-law agreements or business terms and conditions;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 h (new)

4h. Highlights the need to ensure transparency to the maximum extent feasible to all measures taken under the new Act, including those taken by Member States' and Union authorities;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 i (new)

4i. Emphasises the need to establish effective and timely remedies accessible to all, without discrimination, that are independent and impartial;

Amendment 6 #

Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN, Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Loucas FOURLAS, Peter POLLÁK, François-Xavier BELLAMY, Isabel BENJUMEA BENJUMEA, Asim ADEMOV, Milan ZVER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls for the establishment of a modern understanding of fundamental rights, according to which fundamental rights are not only defensive rights against the State, but also protect freedom by limiting power; fundamental rights must therefore also impose obligations on those who exercise power through their technical infrastructures; in the case of such situation-based binding of private players by fundamental rights on a par with the State, account shall be taken of the degree of market domination, a market-dominating or quasi-monopolistic position, the degree of user reliance on the offer and the affected interests of users, of the powerful players themselves and of other third parties;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Underlines that the Digital Services Act should be fully compliant with the objective of ensuring the protection of fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of expression and information, privacy, as well as the right to property, including intellectual property;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Considers that any forthcoming legislative proposals on digital services should be compliant with the protection of fundamental rights, including respect for freedom of expression, private life, cultural and linguistic diversity, freedom of arts and personal data protection;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Highlights the need for an effective set of fundamental rights safeguards to protect the public interest, including free expression and quality content, and to increase the levels of transparency and accountability;

source: 650.541

2020/05/07 IMCO 79 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Svenja HAHN, Jordi CAÑAS

Draft opinion
Recital 1 a (new)

1a. Whereas respect and protection of fundamental rights and civil liberties must be a cornerstone of the revised and new rules for the digital single market that will be adopted through the Digital Services Act package;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that specific attention be paid to ensure that no measures adopted affect or weaken the protection of freedom of expression;

Amendment 11 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Svenja HAHN, Jordi CAÑAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Proposes that the Digital Services Act package recognises the protection of fundamental rights on the digital single market as a key goal of the new and revised rules and considers that any legislative proposal put forward as part of the package should expressly address and make reference to any fundamental rights issue it might pose, in particular when such proposal sets out any restriction to fundamental rights or civil liberties.

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Believes that the Digital Services Act should respect the broad framework of fundamental European rights of users and consumers, such as the protection of privacy, non-discrimination, dignity, and free speech;

Amendment 13 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Anna-Michelle ASIMAKOPOULOU, Maria da Graça CARVALHO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. States that limited liability provisions as set out in the e-Commerce Directive1 must be ~~maintained and strengthened in the Digital Services Act, particularly~~ adjusted in the Digital Services Act, so as to make sure that platforms that are actively hosting or moderating content bear more, proportionately to their capabilities, responsibility for illegal or harmful content; argues that besides the content, platforms should be responsible for the effects of their algorithms and their actions, including moderating or~~der to protect freedom of expression and the freedom to provide service~~ curating of the content, vis-à-vis consumers; highlights that these adjustments should pay particular attention to protect freedom of expression and the freedom to provide services; emphasises that this should be achieved without introducing any sort of general monitoring requirements; underlines the importance of these protections to the growth of European SMEs; _________________ 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 14 #

Jordi CAÑAS, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. States that limited liability provisions as set out in the e-Commerce Directive1 must be maintained and strengthened in the Digital Services Act, including the long-established principle prohibiting general monitoring obligations, particularly in order to protect freedom of expression and the freedom to provide services; underlines the importance of these protections to the growth of European SMEs, as well as to better protect users’ fundamental rights in the digital environment and to tackle the spread of illegal content, with the purpose of fostering the creation of an open and competitive online ecosystem; _________________ 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 15 #

Martin SCHIRDEWAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. States that in general the limited liability provisions as set out in the e- Commerce Directive1 ~~must~~should be maintained ~~and strengthened~~ in the Digital Services Act, particularly in order to protect freedom of expression and the freedom to provide services; underlines the importance of these protections to the growth of European SMEs; considers nevertheless that for commercial activities on online market places a tailored liability regime with proper enforcement mechanisms is necessary in order to guarantee consumer protection and product safety; further considers ex-ante rules for "gate keepers" necessary in order to restore a level playing field in the digital economy; _________________ 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 16 #

Deirdre CLUNE, Edina TÓTH, Andrey KOVATCHEV, Maria da Graça CARVALHO, Anna-Michelle ASIMAKOPOULOU, Marion WALSMANN, Arba KOKALARI, Kris PEETERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. States that limited liability provisions as set out in the e-Commerce Directive1 must be maintained ~~and strengthen~~but additional measures are needed in the Digital Services Act, particularly in order to protect consumers in the EU, and in line with freedom of expression and the freedom to provide services; underlines the importance of these protections to strengthen consumers trust online and promote the growth of European SMEs; _________________ 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 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. States that limited liability provisions as set out in the e-Commerce Directive1 must be maintained and ~~strengthen~~where needed, updated in the Digital Services Act to better protect users and consumers, particularly in order to protect freedom of expression and the freedom to provide services; underlines the importance of these protections to the growth of European ~~SMEs~~companies, SMEs and microbusinesses in particular; _________________ 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 18 #

Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Andreas SCHIEDER, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Clara AGUILERA, Marc ANGEL, Brando BENIFEI, Sándor RÓNAI, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Alex AGIUS SALIBA, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Maria GRAPINI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. States that limited liability provisions as set out in the e-Commerce Directive1 must be ~~maintained and strengthen~~preserved in the Digital Services Act, particularly in order to protect f~~reedom of expression~~undamental 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 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. States that limited liability provisions for passive hosting service providers as set out in the e-Commerce Directive1 must be maintained ~~and strengthened~~ in the Digital Services Act, particularly in order to protect freedom of expression and the freedom to provide services; underlines the importance of these protections to the growth of European SMEs; _________________ 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 2 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Kris PEETERS, Marion WALSMANN, Anna-Michelle ASIMAKOPOULOU, Pascal ARIMONT, Dan-Ştefan MOTREANU, Maria da Graça CARVALHO

Draft opinion
Recital 1 b (new)

1b. Whereas the fight against illegal or harmful content online can be a pretext for governments to restrict freedom of expression and persecute legitimate dissent and opposition;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls on the Commission to introduce provisions protecting consumers from harmful microtargeting; in this respect, believes that specific limitations, i.e. of microtargeting based on characteristics exposing physical or psychological vulnerabilities, transparency obligations in regard to algorithms used by platforms and adequate tools empowering users to enforce fundamental rights online, are necessary in order to protect consumer rights effectively;

Amendment 21 #

Evelyne GEBHARDT, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Maria GRAPINI, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Draft opinion
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 #

Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Andreas SCHIEDER, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Clara AGUILERA, Brando BENIFEI, Sándor RÓNAI, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Alex AGIUS SALIBA, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Maria GRAPINI

Draft opinion
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 #

Maria GRAPINI, Clara AGUILERA, Marc ANGEL, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Stresses that the Digital Services Act must take into account the General Data Protection Regulation;

Amendment 24 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Anna-Michelle ASIMAKOPOULOU, Dan-Ştefan MOTREANU, Maria da Graça CARVALHO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recognises that ~~SME~~microcompanies 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 recourse to automatic filtering tools, which may often lead to the removal of legal contentin this regard, calls the Commission to make sure that the legislative proposal will keep the digital single market open and competitive and to pay special attention to the specific needs of microcompanies;

Amendment 25 #

Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Andreas SCHIEDER, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Clara AGUILERA, Sándor RÓNAI, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Alex AGIUS SALIBA, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
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 recourse to automatic filtering tools, which may often lead to the removal of legal contenthich should be taken into account in order not to hinder the growth of SMEs;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recognises that SMEs and large players have differing capabilities with regard to the moderation of content; warns th~~at overburdening businesses with~~e Commission that these 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 27 #

Maria GRAPINI, Clara AGUILERA, Marc ANGEL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recognises that SMEs ~~and large players have differing capabilities with regard to the moderation of content~~do 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 28 #

Jordi CAÑAS, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Draft opinion
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 recourse to automatic filtering tools, which may often lead to the removal of legal content and may prevent them from entering the market, undermining the freedom to provide services; underlines in this regard the importance of stimulating the emergence of SMEs by lowering and removing market access barriers, accordingly;

Amendment 29 #

Martin SCHIRDEWAN

Draft opinion
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 recourse to automatic filtering tools, which may often lead to the removal of legal content; therefore, demands that when automatic filtering tools are applied, robust safeguards for transparency and accountability should be introduced with highly skilled independent and impartial public oversight;

Amendment 3 #

Deirdre CLUNE, Edina TÓTH, Andrey KOVATCHEV, Pablo ARIAS ECHEVERRÍA, Maria da Graça CARVALHO, Anna-Michelle ASIMAKOPOULOU, Marion WALSMANN, Arba KOKALARI, Kris PEETERS

Draft opinion
Recital 1 c (new)

1c. Whereas content moderation by content hosting platforms can result in illegitimate restrictions to freedom of expression either deliberately or through the use of automated content moderation mechanisms;

Amendment 30 #

Brando BENIFEI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recognises that SMEs and large players have differing capabilities with regard to the moderation of content; warns th~~at overburdening businesses with~~e Commission that introducing 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 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recognises that online intermediaries, including microcompanies, 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 recourse to automatic filtering tools, which may often lead to the removal of legal content;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
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~~calls for new obligations ~~could further~~on platforms to hinder the growth of SMEs ~~and require r~~. Recourse to automat~~ic filtering tools, which may often lead to the removal of legal c~~ed content recognition technologies should be proportionatent;

Amendment 33 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Svenja HAHN, Jordi CAÑAS

Draft opinion
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 content~~general monitoring and that the right to fair trial and effective redress should be ensured;

Amendment 34 #

Jordi CAÑAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Considers that ex ante competition rules could complement the enforcement of ex post competition rules to address abusive behaviours and other market distortions, which hamper a fair competition and a level playing field in the digital single market, with the ultimate aim of protecting the consumers’ freedoms and fundamental rights;

Amendment 35 #

3a. Recalls that the e-commerce directive is the legal framework for online services in the Internal Market that regulates content management; stresses that any fragmentation of that framework, resulting from the revision of the e- commerce directive should be avoided;

Amendment 36 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Kris PEETERS, Anna-Michelle ASIMAKOPOULOU, Pascal ARIMONT, Maria da Graça CARVALHO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes theat there are often significant differences between digital services ~~and~~; therefore calls for the avoidance of a one-size-fits-all approach, where differentiation of instruments is needed;

Amendment 37 #

Evelyne GEBHARDT, Sylvie GUILLAUME, Maria GRAPINI

Draft opinion
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 38 #

Deirdre CLUNE, Andrey KOVATCHEV, Pablo ARIAS ECHEVERRÍA, Maria da Graça CARVALHO, Anna-Michelle ASIMAKOPOULOU, Arba KOKALARI, Kris PEETERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Considers that access to the internet is now a fundamental right; notes that European citizens now expect to be able to contact the emergency services wherever they are, even if they do not necessarily know what network coverage they will have as they travel around Europe; considers that access to the telephone and internet network is now essential for reasons of internal market access and security; points out that the technology now exists for 100% coverage of a national network and that operating licences should impose this service requirement on operators.

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls the fact that mdisinformativeon and harmful content is not always illegal in every Member State; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a well-defined notice- and-takedown process; 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,action mechanism; Believes that such a process adding requirements for platforms to take any measures regarding the content they host must take note of the significant differences between digital services and be proportionate to their scale of reach and operational capacities so as to avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens for the platforms and any restrictions of fundamental rights as a result, such as any restriction on the freedom of expression; Supports greater cooperation between Member States, competent authorities and platforms with the aim of developing and improving soft law approaches in order to further tackle mdisinformation;

Amendment 4 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Anna-Michelle ASIMAKOPOULOU, Dan-Ştefan MOTREANU, Maria da Graça CARVALHO

Draft opinion
Recital 1 d (new)

1d. Whereas content can be illegal for a number of reasons such as interference with an individual’s fundamental rights, hate speech considerations, connection to criminal activity, damage to a person’s legitimate interests, damage to general interests, etc. and thus not all allegedly illegal content is equally dangerous and potentially harmful;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls the fact that mdisinformativeon and harmful content, yet detrimental to society, is not always illegal in all Member States; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a well-defined notice- and-~~takedow~~action process~~; supports~~ and int~~ensive dialogue between authorities and relevant stakeholders with the aim of deepening the soft law approach based on good pract~~roducing obligations for business operators to take proactive measures proportionate to their scale of reach and operational capacities to address the appearance of illegal and harmful content, including disinformation, on their services; su~~ch as the EU-wide Code of Practice on Disinformation,~~pports an intensive dialogue between authorities and relevant stakeholders in order to further tackle mdisinformation;

Amendment 41 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jordi CAÑAS

Draft opinion
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-~~takedow~~action 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 practices~~evaluating 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 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls the fact that misinformative and harmful content is not always illegal and that not all types of illegal content are harmonised at EU level; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a well-defined notice-and-takedown process; 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 43 #

Draft opinion
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 process~~harmonised, 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 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls the fact that mis~~informative~~leading and harmful content is not always illegal; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a well- defined notice-and-takedown process for such content; 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 45 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jordi CAÑAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes that information is sometimes manipulated by dominant media outlets whose loss-making economic models make them dependent on State aid; considers that the Commission authorises this type of public financing too easily without checking whether these subsidised outlets have control over all the information they produce; calls for the scope of the arrangements for monitoring the granting of State aid to be extended to cover such media outlets and public service broadcasters.

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses the need to distinguish between ‘illegal’, ‘harmful’, and other content; notes that while some content linked to religious belief or political positions for instance might be considered harmful without being illegal; considers that harmful legal content should not be regulated or defined in the Digital Service Act;

Amendment 47 #

Jordi CAÑAS, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes the importance of adopting further rules on digital advertising and ensuring full compliance with GDPR provisions, in order to avoid intrusive business models, behavioural manipulation and discriminatory practices, which have major effects on the Single Market and users’ fundamental rights, privacy and data security;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
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 49 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Anna-Michelle ASIMAKOPOULOU, Maria da Graça CARVALHO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Recalls its opposition to the granting of State aid to certain sectors of the press which then gain an advantage over others not so favoured; stresses that the resulting distortion of competition in the internal market is particularly unfair given the many digital news service providers which are excluded from such aid despite performing a similar activity and having a comparable, if not larger, target audience.

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s ~~intention~~commitment to introduce a harmonised approach ~~addressing obligations imposed on intermediari~~on digital services, in order to avoid fragmentation of the internal market; ~~stresses that any measure related to fundamental rights should be c~~the Digital Services Act should ensure that the internal market freedoms are fully ~~balanced and take into account the possible impact on the functioning of the internal market~~realised in complete compliance with fundamental rights and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental rights of the EU, and calls on the Commission to ~~avoid the ‘export’ of national regulations and instead to~~ propose the most efficient and effective sustainable solutions for the internal market as a whole;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Highlights that tracking applications must respect privacy rights in addition to the provisions of the GDPR;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
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 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for the introduction of ~~counter-notice tools to allow~~proper safeguards and due process requirements, including human oversight and verification of all complaints, as well as counter-notice tools in order to ensure that removal decisions are accurate and content owners tocan 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 solely to private companies is unacceptable and creates risks for both citizens and businesses, ~~neither of which are qualified to take such decisions~~for this reason removal of content should be followed-up by law enforcement.

Amendment 53 #

Deirdre CLUNE, Andrey KOVATCHEV, Pablo ARIAS ECHEVERRÍA, Maria da Graça CARVALHO, Anna-Michelle ASIMAKOPOULOU, Arba KOKALARI, Kris PEETERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for the introduction of counter-notice tools to allow ~~content own~~uploaders 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 speech~~restrict the right to freedom of expression of online users to private companies is unacceptable and creates risks for both ~~citizen~~individuals 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 54 #

Edina TÓTH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for the introduction of appropriate safeguards, due process obligations and counter- notice ~~tool~~procedures to allow content ~~own~~uploaders 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.~~; Believes that the removal of content should be followed up by law enforcement where needed;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for the introduction of appropriate safeguards, due process obligations and counter- notice ~~tool~~procedures 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.~~; Believes that the removal of content should be followed up by law enforcement where needed;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for the introduction of counter-notice tools to allow content ~~own~~uploaders to defend their ~~right~~claims 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~~of online service providers to tackle the dissemination of illegal content should be performed within a clear legislative framework and with judicial oversight.

Amendment 57 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jordi CAÑAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 58 #

6a. Believes that allowing new innovative business model to flourish and strengthening the Digital Single Market by removing barriers to the free movement of digital content, barriers which creates national fragmented markets and a demand for illegal content, have been proven to work in the past, especially in relation to the infringements of Intellectual Property rights;

Amendment 59 #

Maria GRAPINI, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Clara AGUILERA, Marc ANGEL, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
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 6 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Anna-Michelle ASIMAKOPOULOU, Dan-Ştefan MOTREANU, Maria da Graça CARVALHO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to introduce a harmonised approach addressing obligations ~~imposed on~~for 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 calls on the Commission to avoid the ‘export’ of national regulations and instead to propose th and to guarantee the respect of fundamental rights and freedoms of users across the Union in a uniform way ; stresses that any measure related to fundamental rights should be carefully balanced and ensure fair digital ecosystem; therefore calls on the Commission to propose the widest- possible harmonisation of rules on liability exemptions and content moderation in order to achieve most efficient and effective solutions for the internal market as a whole;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
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 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Acknowledges the fact that, while the illegal nature of certain types of content can be easily established, the decision is less clear-cut for other types of content as it requires contextualisation; warns that some automated tools are not sufficiently sophisticated to take context into account, which could lead to unnecessary restrictions being placed on freedom of expression.

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
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 63 #

Martin SCHIRDEWAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Considers that practices like profiling deeply interfere with people's rights and freedoms; recognizes that the General Data Protection Regulation framework does not adequately protect consumers against profile building and unjustified automated decisions; therefore is the opinion that in order to ensure adequate protection of consumers, personal data should only be used where it’s necessary to provide the service requested;

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Recalls that the current notice and take down mechanism does not prevent illegal content that was previously taken down to be re-uploaded; stresses the scale of services and content available online nowadays; calls therefore for a strengthened framework that foresees a notice and stay down mechanism in order to ensure that online service providers take effective measures to ensure that illegal content that was rightfully removed from their services following a notice, stays down.

Amendment 65 #

Maria GRAPINI, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Clara AGUILERA, Marc ANGEL, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Recommends that the Digital Services Act package introduces harmonized standards and procedure for tackling illegal content online, applicable to content moderation by content hosting platforms -on the basis of notice-and- action mechanisms- and to content supervision by any national authority, which ensure sufficient safeguards against abusive restrictive measures, including effective control by a court or other independent adjudicatory body; and considers that such standards should differentiate and set out different approaches depending on the protected interest the allegedly illegal content could potentially damage.

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
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;

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
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 68 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Stresses that access to the services of a digital network should allow, on equal subscription terms, identical and indiscriminate access to the whole network; calls, therefore, for a ban on the practices of setting content quotas or profiling on the basis of users’ characteristics, opinions or interests, and on the practices of blanking and shadow banning unless justified on the grounds of clearly identified misconduct on the part of the user.

Amendment 69 #

Deirdre CLUNE, Edina TÓTH, Andrey KOVATCHEV, Maria da Graça CARVALHO, Anna-Michelle ASIMAKOPOULOU, Marion WALSMANN, Arba KOKALARI, Kris PEETERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Remarks that interference with freedom of expression must be prescribed by law and thus insists that nothing in the Digital Services Act package should allow authorities to order the removal of legal content on the grounds that it is “harmful” or “fake”.

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to introduce a harmonised approach addressing obligations ~~imposed on~~for online intermediaries, in order to avoid fragmentation of the internal market while guaranteeing users fundamental rights; 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 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 without creating new administrative burdens and keeping the digital single market open and competitive;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6c. Considers that the EU body tasked with the oversight of the application of the standards and procedure for tackling illegal content online should monitor and control both content moderation by content hosting platforms and content supervision by national authorities.

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6c. Emphasises the right to education and cultural identity and the need for an honest presentation of online content, particularly as regards the classification of works of fiction as ‘recreational’ or ‘historical’ products.

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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;

Amendment 8 #