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 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Birgit SIPPEL, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to introduce a harmonised approach addressing obligations imposed on intermediaries, in order to avoid fragmentation of the internal market; stresses that any measure related to fundamental rights should ~~be carefully balanced and take into account the possible impact on the functioning of~~ensure 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 9 #

Maria GRAPINI, Clara AGUILERA, Marc ANGEL, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to introduce a harmonised approach addressing obligations imposed on intermediaries, in order to avoid fragmentation of the internal market; stresses that any measure related to fundamental rights should be carefully balanced and take into account the possible impact on the functioning of the internal market and ensuring consumer protection, and calls on the Commission to avoid the ‘export’ of national regulations and instead to propose the most efficient and effective solutions for the internal market as a whole;

source: 650.628

2020/06/24 LIBE 267 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
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 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 d (new)

— having regard to Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market;

Amendment 100 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Requests that digital services should to the maximum extent possible be accessible without the need for users to reveal their identity.

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Emphasises that there are certain differences still between online and offline worlds, for instance, in terms of anonymity, the absence of a governing entity, between the balances of power and technical capabilities; Calls therefore on the Commission to let the principles of human dignity and 'what is illegal offline is illegal online' prevail in its DSA- proposal and to introduce in the DSA the concept of digital dignity, which builds upon these principles and embodies the fundamental rights of individuals;

Amendment 102 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Reiterates that digital service providers must respect and enable their users’ right to data portability as laid down in Union law.

Amendment 103 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Deems it necessary that illegal content is removed swi~~ftl~~thout undue delay and consistently where the hosting service provider has actual knowledge of it and its illegal nature in order to address crimes and fundamental rights violations; considers that voluntary codes of conduct ~~only partially address the issue~~and standard contractual terms of service are not appropriate for addressing illegal content in line with fundamental rights; stresses that the responsibility for enforcing the law, deciding on the legality of online activities and ordering hosting service providers to remove or disable access to illegal content as soon as possible shall rest with independent judicial authorities;

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
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 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Deems it necessary that illegal content is removed swiftly and consistently in order to address crimes and fundamental rights violations; considers that voluntary codes of conduct only partially address the issue and that a more effective liability regime for platforms should be introduced;

Amendment 106 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Clare DALY, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Deems it necessary that flagrantly illegal content is removed swiftly and consistently in order to address crimes and ~~fundamental rights violations~~terrorist propaganda; considers that voluntary codes of conduct ~~only partially address the issue~~have helped to reduce the appearance of illegal content on the internet and are a good mechanism that should be strengthened;

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Deems it necessary that illegal ~~content is~~activities are removed swiftly and consistently in order to address ~~crime~~law infringements and fundamental rights violations; considers that voluntary codes of conduct ~~only partially~~lack adequate enforcement and have proven to be inefficient in addressing the issue;

Amendment 108 #

Caterina CHINNICI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Javier MORENO SÁNCHEZ, Laura FERRARA, Brando BENIFEI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Deems it necessary that illegal content is removed swiftly and consistently in order to address crimes, especially those relating to children and fundamental rights violations; considers that voluntary codes of conduct only partially address the issue;

Amendment 109 #

Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Deems it necessary that illegal content is removed ~~swiftly and~~ consistently within a strictly defined period of time in order to address crimes and fundamental rights violations; considers that voluntary codes of conduct only partially address the issue;

Amendment 11 #

Kris PEETERS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Paulo RANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)

— having regard to the Commission recommendation of 1 March 2018 on measures to effectively tackle illegal content online (C(2018) 1177 final);

Amendment 110 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Clare DALY, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on digital service providers to take content offline in a diligent, proportionate and non-discriminatory manner, and with due regard in all circumstances to the fundamental rights of the users and to take into account the fundamental importance of the freedom of expression and information in an open and democratic society with a view to avoiding the removal of content, which is not illegal. Requests digital service providers, which on their own initiative want to restrict certain legal content of their users, to explore the possibility of labelling rather than taking offline that content, giving users the chance to self- responsibly choose to access that content.

Amendment 111 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls that illegal ~~content~~information, services and products online should not only be removed by online platforms, but should be followed up by law enforcement and the judiciary; ~~finds, in this regard, that a key issue in some Member States is not that they have unresolved cases but rather unopened ones~~calls on the Commission to consider obliging major hosting service providers to report serious crime to the competent law enforcement authority, upon obtaining actual knowledge of such a crime; 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 improved;~~, as well as cross-border cooperation between national competent authorities should be improved; stresses in this regard the need to respect the legal order of the EU and the established principles of cross-border cooperation; stresses that competent authorities have to be provided with adequate resources in order to be effective.

Amendment 112 #

Kris PEETERS, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Paulo RANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls that illegal content online should not only be removed by online platforms, but should be followed up by law enforcement and the judiciary; finds, in this regard, that a key issue in some Member States is not that they have unresolved cases but rather unopened ones; considers that providing national judicial services with specialised staff and adequate financial resources is key to improving access to and the efficiency of the justice system in the area of digital services; 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 improved;

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls that illegal content online should not only be removed by online platforms, but should be followed up by law enforcement and the judiciary; finds, in this regard, that a key issue in some Member States is not that they 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 improved; calls, to this end, on Member States to equip their law enforcement and judicial authorities with the necessary expertise, resources and tools to allow them to effectively deal with the increasing number of cases involving illegal content online;

Amendment 114 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls that illegal content online should not ~~only be~~be 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 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls that illegal content online should not only be removed by online platforms, but should be followed up by law enforcement and the judiciary; finds, in this regard, that a key issue in some Member States is not that they 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 improvedis 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, as well as between national competent authorities, should be improved, for instance by introducing tools based on cooperation and mutual trust between Member States, e.g. beyond the cross-border order to remove online content which is clearly and unquestionably illegal;

Amendment 116 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls that illegal content online should not only be removed by online platforms, but should be followed up by law enforcement and the judiciary where criminal acts are concerned ; finds, in this regard, that a key issue in some Member States is not that they 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 ~~improved~~regulated based on the principles of necessity and proportionality;

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
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 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Stresses that proportionate sanctions should be applied to violations of the law, which shall not encompass excluding individuals from digital services;

Amendment 119 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
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 and differentiate illegal content from content that is legal in a given context, which ~~could~~ leads to unnecessary restrictions being placed on the freedom of expression; and information; highlights that a review of automated reports by service providers, their staff or their contractors does not solve this problem as private staff lack the independence, qualification and accountability of public authorities; therefore stresses that the Digital Services Act shall explicitly prohibit any obligation on hosting service providers or other technical intermediaries to use automated tools for content moderation, and refrain from imposing notice-and-stay-down mechanisms; content moderation procedures used by providers shall not lead to any ex-ante control measures based on automated tools or upload- filtering of content;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
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 120 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Clare DALY, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Acknowledges the fact that~~, while~~ the decision on 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 contextuaonline information, products and services is difficult as it requires contextualisation; warns that automated tools are unable to differentiate illegal content from content that is legal in a given context , which could lead to unnecessary restrictions being placed on the freedom of expression; highlights that a review of automated reports by service providers, their staff or their contractors does not solve this problem as private staff lack the independence, qualification and accountability of public authorities; therefore stresses that the Digital Services Act shall explicitly prohibit any oblisgation ~~into account, which could lead to unnecessary restrictions being placed on the freedom of expression~~on hosting service providers or other technical intermediaries to use automated tools for content moderation, and refrain from imposing notice-and-stay-down mechanisms; content moderation procedures used by providers shall not lead to any ex-ante control measures based on automated tools or upload- filtering of content;

Amendment 121 #

Kris PEETERS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Paulo RANGEL

Motion for a resolution
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 th~~takedowns and harm the freedom of expression; highlights that illegal content online can easily be multiplied which greatly amplifies the negative impact within a very short period of time; therefore believes that digital service providers should be allowed to have fre~~edom of express~~course to automated tools with human oversight to detect, remove or block access to content whose illegality has either been established by a court or can be easily determined without contextualisation;

Amendment 122 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
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 expression~~reminds 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 123 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 124 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 125 #

Kris PEETERS, Paulo RANGEL

Motion for a resolution
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; considers it necessary to provide a clear definition of ‘illegal’ content and ‘dangerous’ content; 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 expression;

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new)

considers, in this regard, that other stakeholders in the online ecosystem, such as users, right holders and media, can also play an important role in establishing whether content is illegal based on the specific context; invites these stakeholders to cooperate closely and exchange information with platforms to help them to effectively identify and address illegal content;

Amendment 127 #

Nadine MORANO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses that the removal of online content must be consistent with the freedoms of expression and communication;

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Underlines that a specific piece of information may be deemed illegal in one Member State but is covered by the right to freedom of expression in another; highlights that in order to protect freedom of speech standards, to avoid conflicts of laws, to avert unjustified and ineffective geo-blocking and to aim for a harmonised digital single market hosting service providers shall not be required to remove or disable access to information that is legal in their country of origin;

Amendment 129 #

Kris PEETERS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Paulo RANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Underlines that a specific piece of information may be deemed illegal in one Member State but is covered by the right to freedom of expression in another; stresses, therefore, that national authorities should only be allowed to address and enforce removal orders to service providers established in their territory;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 b (new)

— having regard to the Europol Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment (IOCTA) of 18 September 2018;

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Underlines that a specific piece of information may be deemed illegal in one Member State but is covered by the right to freedom of expression in another; calls for a structured dialogue between Member States in order to assess the risk of specific types of content;

Amendment 131 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Is convinced that digital service providers must not be mandated to apply one Member State’s national restrictions on freedom of speech in another Member State where that restriction does not exist.

Amendment 132 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Underlines that illegal content should be removed where it is hosted, and that mere conduit intermediaries shall not be required to block access to content;

Amendment 133 #

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 and ensuring legal clarity ~~and~~, respect for fundamental rights, and enhanced consumer protection; 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; calls on the Council to swiftly reach a general approach which does not lower current levels of protection for consumers to start trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament on the proposal for the ePrivacy Regulation as soon as possible

Amendment 134 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
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 135 #

Motion for a resolution
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 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 and respect the primacy of sector-specific instruments such as the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive;

Amendment 136 #

Motion for a resolution
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 the fragmentation between the Member States and new technologies, ands well as ensuring legal clarity and respect for fundamental rights, in particular the freedom of expression; 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 137 #

Motion for a resolution
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 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, and the sector-specific instruments such as the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive;

Amendment 138 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

Amendment 139 #

Motion for a resolution
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 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8

— having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 October 2019 in case C-18/185 , _________________ 5Judgment of the Court of Justice of 3⁰October 2019, Eva Glawischnig- Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Limited, C- 18/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:821.deleted

Amendment 140 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Clare DALY, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Deems it indispensable to have the widest-possible harmonisation and clarification 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; believes that such rules should maintain liability exemptions for intermediaries not having actual knowledge of the illegal activity or information on their platforms; expresses its concern that recent national laws to tackle hate speech and disinformation lead to a fragmentation of rules and to a lower level of fundamental rights protection in the EU;

Amendment 141 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Deems it indispensable to have the widest-possible harmonisation and clarification 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; believes that such rules should maintain liability exemptions for intermediaries not having knowledge of the illegal activity or information on their platforms; expresses its concern that recent national laws to tackle hate speech and disinformation lead to a fragmentation of rules and to a lower level of fundamental rights protection in the EU;

Amendment 142 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Deems it indispensable to have the widest-possible 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 an increasing fragmentation of rules;

Amendment 143 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Deems it indispensable to have ~~the widest-possible~~full 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 144 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls, to this end, for legislative proposals that keep the digital single market open and competitive by ~~requiring~~strengthening the rules on competition with regard to digital service providers to prevent harm to competition and consumers; requests for the Digital Services Act to require digital service providers to apply effective, coherent, transparent and fair procedures and procedural safeguards to ~~remov~~tackle illegal ~~content~~activities in line with European ~~values~~law; firmly believes that this should be harmonised within the digital single market;

Amendment 145 #

Caterina CHINNICI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Javier MORENO SÁNCHEZ, Laura FERRARA, Brando BENIFEI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls, to this end, for legislative proposals that keep the digital single market open and competitive by requiring digital service providers to apply effective, coherent, transparent and fair procedures and procedural safeguards to premovent by actively detecting and reporting reliably identified child sexual abuse material (CSAM) online and removing illegal content in line with European values; firmly believes that this should be harmonised within the digital single market;

Amendment 146 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls, to this end, for legislative proposals that keep the digital single market open and competitive by requiring digital service providers to apply effective, coherent, transparent and fair procedures and procedural safeguards to remove illegal content in line with ~~European values~~the values that derive from the Roman civilisation and the Christian ethics that underpin the existence of the European Community; firmly believes that this should be harmonised within the digital single market;

Amendment 147 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls, to this end, for legislative proposals that keep the digital single market open and competitive by requiring digital service providers to apply effective, coherent, transparent and fair procedures and procedural safeguards to remove illegal content in line with European values, while also establishing a procedure for collaboration with law enforcement and judicial authorities; firmly believes that this should be harmonised within the digital single market;

Amendment 148 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls, to this end, ~~for legislative proposals that keep~~that the digital single market is kept open and competitive by requiring digital service providers to apply effective, coherent, transparent and fair procedures ~~and~~with robust procedural safeguards to remove illegal content ~~in line with European values; firmly believes that this should be harmonised within the digital single market~~via a harmonised notice-and-action procedure in line with European legislation;

Amendment 149 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls, to this end, for legislative proposals that keep the digital single market open and competitive by requiring digital service providers to apply effective, coherent, transparent and fair procedures and procedural safeguards to ~~remov~~tackle illegal content in line with the law and European values; firmly believes that this should be harmonised within the digital single market;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8

Amendment 150 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls, to this end, for legislative proposals that keep the digital single market open and competitive by requiring digital service providers to apply effective, coherent, transparent and fair procedures and procedural safeguards to remove illegal content in line with European values and law; firmly believes that this should be harmonised within the digital single market;

Amendment 151 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 152 #

Motion for a resolution
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 to general monitoring requirements; proposes the implementation of a common and permanent liability framework for platforms in order to effectively identify and remove illegal content; considers, in particular, that a harmonised EU framework should be based on due diligence obligations so that platforms implement proactive and effective measures, in addition to their obligations relating to transparency and information; considers it important to accompany 'notification and action' procedures for identifying new content with an obligation to monitor content which has already been deemed illegal and removed, in order to prevent it from reappearing online;

Amendment 153 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Believes, in this regard, that large online platforms that are actively hosting or, moderating ~~content~~or recommending content, services or products, should bear more, yet proportionate, ~~responsi~~liability for the infrastructure they provide and the ~~content on it; emphasises that this should be achieved without resorting to general monitoring requirements;~~ services they offer to users; considers, in this sense, that online marketplaces must be liable upon obtaining credible evidence of illegal activities; emphasises that this should be achieved without resorting to general monitoring requirements, nor to a general and undefined duty of care; Highlights that, in order to ensure legal certainty, the new legal framework shall exhaustively and explicitly spell out the obligations of digital service providers;

Amendment 154 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Believes, in this regard, that online platforms that are ~~actively hosting or modera~~hosting content should bear ~~more, yet~~ proportionate~~, responsi~~ liability for th~~e infrastructure they provide and the content on it; emphasises that this should be achieved without resorting to general monitoring requirement~~ird-party content they host only where they have actual knowledge of illegal content and its illegal nature; emphasises that this should be achieved without resorting to general monitoring requirements and ex-ante control measures based on automated tools or upload-filtering of content; highlights that the legal regime for digital providers liability should not depend on uncertain notions such as the ‘active’ or ‘passive’ role of providers;

Amendment 155 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 156 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Stresses that public authorities must not impose any obligation on digital service providers, neither de jure nor de facto, to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation to seek, moderate or filter content indicating illegal activity.

Amendment 157 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10b. Is convinced that digital service providers must not be required to prevent the upload of illegal content. Believes at the same time, where technologically feasible, based on sufficiently substantiated orders by democratically accountable competent public authorities, and taking full account of the specific context of the content, that digital service providers may be required to execute periodic searches for distinct pieces of content, which, in line with the ECJ Judgment in Case C-18/18, are identical or equivalent to content that a court had already declared unlawful, and to take that content offline.

Amendment 158 #

Motion for a resolution
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 159 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Clare DALY, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Highlights that this should include~~Urges the adoption of rules on theransparent 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 andmeasures in order to address the appearance of illegal activities on their services; these measures should include a robust business user authentication and verification process for services and products offered or facilitated in their platforms, while preserving consumer anonymity; stresses that independent public authorities should be ultimately responsible to determine whether an activity is legal or not; supports 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 16 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
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 160 #

Caterina CHINNICI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Javier MORENO SÁNCHEZ, Laura FERRARA

Motion for a resolution
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 and prevent the appearance of illegal content on their services, considers that this should entail an obligation for platforms to detect and remove reliably identified Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM); supports a balanced duty-of-care approach and 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 161 #

Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
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 technical and operational capacities in order to address the appearance of illegal content on their services; supports a balanced duty-of-care approach and 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~~the freedom to controversial and polemical expression, as well as to restrict the promotion of various philosophical, social and political ideas;

Amendment 162 #

Motion for a resolution
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, based on an assessment of the risks incurred by the platforms and likely to encourage them to take proactive measures, and 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 163 #

Kris PEETERS, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Paulo RANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Highlights that this should include rules on the notice-and-action mechanisms and requirements for platforms to take proac~~Expects digital service providers to establish fair and transparent notivce 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 and a clear chain of responsibility tochanisms, which empower users to notify the relevant democratically accountable competent public authorities of potentially illegal content. Highlights that this should avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens ~~for the platforms~~ and unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on fundamental rights, including the freedom of expression;

Amendment 164 #

Motion for a resolution
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 effectively address the appearance of illegal content on their services, while leaving the choice of the concrete measures to the platforms; supports a balanced duty-of-care approach and 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 165 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Highlights that thise new legislative framework should include rules on the notice-and-action mechanisms ~~and requirements for platforms to take proactive measures that are proportionate to their scale of rea~~in order to address the appearance of illegal content online while refraining from imposing notice-and-stay-down mech an~~d operational capacities in order to address the appearance of illegal content on their services; supports a balanced duty-of-care approach and a clear chain of responsibility~~isms; applicable legislation shall exhaustively and explicitly spell out the obligations of digital service providers rather than imposing a general duty of care to avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens for the platforms and unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on fundamental rights, including the freedom of expression, access to information and the right to privacy;

Amendment 166 #

Bartosz ARŁUKOWICZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Considers that greater regulatory clarity and dialogue with stakeholders is needed to encourage information society service providers to engage in additional voluntary activities to moderate their content in accordance with the law;

Amendment 167 #

Motion for a resolution
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 ~~accurate~~legal, well- founded and respect fundamental rights; recalls that ~~the possibility of judicial r~~while counter-notice procedures~~s should be mad~~, complaint mechanisms and out-of-court dispute settlements can be availuable to ~~satisfy the right to effective~~ols in protecting fundamental rights of the users of digital services, they cannot preclude access to effective judicial redress and remedy;

Amendment 168 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Stresses the need for appropriate safeguards and due process obligations, including a requirement for human oversight and verification, in addition to counter notice procedures, to ensure that removal or blocking decisions are accurate, well- founded and respect fundamental rights; highlights that persons who systematically and repeatedly submit wrongful or abusive notices shall be sanctioned; recalls that the possibility of judicial redress should ~~be made~~remain available to satisfy the right to effective remedy;

Amendment 169 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
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 accurate, well- founded and respect fundamental rights; recalls that the possibility of judicial redress, following the final decision taken by the platforms in accordance with the internal complaints system, should be made available to satisfy the right to effective remedy;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
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 170 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
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~~decisions to take content offline are accurate, well- founded and respect fundamental rights; recalls that the possibility of judicial redress should be made available to satisfy the right to effective remedy, believes that all decisions to take users’ content offline must be subject to human oversight and verification;

Amendment 171 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

Amendment 172 #

Caterina CHINNICI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Javier MORENO SÁNCHEZ, Laura FERRARA, Brando BENIFEI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Stresses that, in order to protect the freedom of expression and information, it is crucial to maintain the limited liability regime for intermediaries not having knowledge of the illegal activity or information; highlights that the legal regime for digital providers liability should not depend on uncertain notions such as the ‘active’ or ‘passive’ role of providers;

Amendment 173 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Supports limited liability for content and the country of origin principle, but 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 to those service providers that fail to comply with legitimate orders; calls for the creation of an EU Centre for Preventing and Combating child sexual abuse that would ensure an effective and coordinated response to child sexual abuse cases online, as requested in the European Parliament Resolution on children's rights in the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of 26 November 2019;

Amendment 174 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Clare DALY, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Supports ~~limited liability for content and the country of origin principle, but~~the country of origin principle including its consumer contracts derogation, but clarifications to the liability regime, particularly for online marketplaces, is needed; considers improved coordination for removal requests between national competent authorities to be ~~essential~~important; emphasises that such orders should be subject to legal safeguards in order to prevent abuse and ensure full respect of fundamental rights; stresses that an effective oversight and enforcement mechanism, including sanctions, should apply to those service providers that fail to comply with ~~legitimate orders~~transparency obligations, judicial orders, and other provisions of the Digital Services Act;

Amendment 175 #

13. Supports the preservation of the current framework on the limited liability for content and the country of origin principle, but considers improved coordination for removal requests between national competent authorities to be essential; emphasises that such orders should be issued by a judicial authority of the Member State in which a hosting service provider is located and subject to legal safeguards in order to prevent abuse and ensure full respect of fundamental rights; stresses that ~~sanction~~enforcement mechanisms should apply to those service providers that fail to comply with legitimate orders;

Amendment 176 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Supports limited liability for content and the country of origin principle, but 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; highlights that removal requests from competent authorities should be specific and clearly state the legal basis for removal; stresses that sanctions should apply to those service providers that fail to comply with legitimate orders;

Amendment 177 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

Amendment 178 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Supports limited liability ~~for content~~exemption for all types of intermediaries and the country of origin principle, ~~but~~and 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 179 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

Amendment 18 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Clare DALY, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the data protection rules applicable to all providers offering digital services in the EU’s territory were recently updated and harmonised across the EU with the General Data Protection Regulation; whereas the Digital Services Act should apply without prejudice to the rules laid down in the General Data Protection Regulation and in other instruments, such as the Copyright Directive;

Amendment 180 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Stresses that the responsibility for enforcing the law, deciding on the legality of online activities and ordering hosting service providers to remove or disable access to content as soon as possible shall rest with independent judicial authorities; only a hosting service provider that has actual knowledge of illegal content and its illegal nature shall be subject to content removal obligations

Amendment 181 #

Bartosz ARŁUKOWICZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Notes that user-oriented actions (so-called 'targeting') is an area that requires careful supervision; points out that this practice has been included in GDPR and should be properly enforced across the EU before new legislation is considered;

Amendment 182 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Requires digital service providers that become aware of alleged illegal content of their users to notify the competent public authorities without undue delay.

Amendment 183 #

Bartosz ARŁUKOWICZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13b. Calls on all digital actors to comply with the disclosure rules required under the GDPR, including as regards the collection and recording of users' choices and the transmission of those users' choices to technology partners before the processing of personal data;

Amendment 184 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13b. Requests Member States and digital service providers to put in place transparent, effective, fair, and expeditious complaint and redress mechanisms to allow users to challenge the taking offline of their content.

Amendment 185 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)

13c. Requests Member States to improve access to and the efficiency of their justice and law enforcement systems in relation to determining the illegality of online content and in relation to dispute resolution concerning the taking offline of content, and to consider to this end the establishment of specialised courts and law enforcement units within their national judicial and law enforcement systems.

Amendment 186 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 d (new)

13d. Believes that neither infrastructure service providers, payment providers, and other companies offering services to digital service providers, nor digital service providers with a direct relationship with the user must be held liable for the content a user on his own initiative uploads or downloads. Believes at the same time that digital service providers, which have a direct relationship with the user who uploaded the illegal content and which have the ability to take distinct pieces of the user’s content offline, must be held liable for failing to expeditiously respond to sufficiently substantiated orders by democratically accountable competent public authorities to take the illegal content offline.

Amendment 187 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Believes that terms of services of digital service providers should be clear, transparent and fair; ~~deplores the fact that some terms of services from content platforms do not allow law enforcement to use non-personal ac~~underlines that the fairness and compliance with fundamental rights standards of standard contractual terms imposed by intermediaries to the users of their services shall be subject to judicial review; considers that standard count~~s, which poses a threat both to possible investigations and to personal safety~~ractual terms unduly restricting users’ fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy and to freedom of expression, shall not be binding;

Amendment 188 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Believes that terms of services of digital service providers should be clear, transparent and fair and be made available in an easy and accessible manner to users; deplores the fact that some terms of services from content platforms do not allow law enforcement to use non-personal accounts, which poses a threat both to possible investigations and to personal safety;

Amendment 189 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Clare DALY, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

Amendment 190 #

Kris PEETERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Believes that terms of services of digital service providers should be clear, transparent ~~and fair~~, fair and be made available in an easy and accessible manner to users; deplores the fact that some terms of services from content platforms do not allow law enforcement to use non-personal accounts, which poses a threat both to possible investigations and to personal safety;

Amendment 191 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Believes that ~~terms of services of d~~in order to protect consumers' fundamental rights and interests, the Digital sService providers should be clear, transparent and fair; deplores the fact that some terms of services from content platforms do not allow law enforcement to use non-personal accounts, which poses a threat both to possible investigations and to personal safetys Act should introduce rules aiming to ensure that terms of services of digital service providers be clear, transparent and fair;

Amendment 192 #

Motion for a resolution
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 serv~~recalls 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 safety~~an authority has to always be based on law, not on the terms of service of the service providers;

Amendment 193 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Stresses that in line with the principle of data minimisation established by the General Data Protection Regulation, the Digital Services Act shall require intermediaries to enable the anonymous use of their services and payment for them wherever it is technically possible, as anonymity effectively prevents unauthorized disclosure, identity theft and other forms of abuse of personal data collected online; only where existing legislation requires businesses to communicate their identity, providers of major market places could be obliged to verify their identity, while in other cases the right to use digital services anonymously shall be upheld

Amendment 194 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
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~~any attempt to regulate or moderat~~ion or~~e political advertising ~~policy to ensure that removals and the blocking of harmful content are limited to the absolute necessary~~should be prohibited;

Amendment 195 #

Motion for a resolution
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 196 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. ~~Underlines that certain types of legal, yet harmful, content should also be addressed to ensure a fair digital ecosystem; e~~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 necessary~~legal content is not removed;

Amendment 197 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

Amendment 198 #

Nadine MORANO

Motion for a resolution
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 poStresses that, given the need to reconcile the removal of content with freedom of expression, only content, which is illegal, or presumed to be illegal, should be blocked or removed, with the possibilicty ~~to ensure that removals and the blocking of harmful content are limited to the absolute necessary~~of effective legal redress. Legal content should not, by nature, be subject to any removal or blocking;

Amendment 199 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

Amendment 2 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
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 200 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Underlines that certain types of legal, yet potentially 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 potentially harmful content are ~~limited to the absolute necessary~~avoided;

Amendment 201 #

Kris PEETERS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Paulo RANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)

24b. Notes the potential negative impact of personalised advertising, in particular micro-targeted and behavioural advertisements, and of assessments of individuals, especially minors, by interfering in the private life of individuals, posing questions as to the collection and use of the data used to personalise advertising, offering products or services or setting prices; Calls therefore on the Commission to introduce a phase-out prohibition on personalised advertisements, starting with minors, and a prohibition on the use of discriminatory practices for the provision of services or products;

Amendment 202 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Maintains that these forms of harmful content include micro targeting based on characteristics exposing physical or psychological vulnerabilities, health related content such as disinformation on COVID-19 causes or remedies and emerging issues such as the organised abuse of multiple platforms, artificial intelligence applications creating fake profiles or manipulating online content; points out that special attention should be paid to harmful content in the context of minors using the internet, especially in regard to their exposure to cyberbullying, sexual harassment, pornography, violence or self-harm;

Amendment 203 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 – indent 1 (new)

- Considers that, as a general principle, targeted advertising can have a positive economic and societal impact and points to the fact that GDPR needs to be fully and properly enforced to ensure the respect of users' privacy;

Amendment 204 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Points out that the Digital Services Act shall not use the legally undefined concept of “harmful content”, but shall address the publication of content that is unlawful; emphasizes that the spreading of false and racist information on social media should be contained by giving users control over content proposed to them; stresses that curating content on the basis of tracking user actions shall require the user’s consent; proposes that users of social networks should have a right to see their timeline in chronological order; suggests that dominant platforms shall provide users with an interface to have content curated by software or services of their choice;

Amendment 205 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Paul TANG

Motion for a resolution
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 206 #

Dragoş TUDORACHE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Deems that misleading or obscure political advertising is a special class of online threat because it influences the core mechanisms that enable the functioning of our democratic society, especially when such content is sponsored by third-parties and foreign actors; calls, in this regard, for the establishment of strict transparency requirements for the display of paid political advertisement;

Amendment 207 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Calls on digital service providers to take the necessary measures to identify and label content uploaded by social bots.

Amendment 208 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Paul TANG

Motion for a resolution
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 209 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15b. Notes the potential negative impact of micro-targeted advertising, micro- targeted content curation and of assessment of individuals, especially on minors and other vulnerable groups, by interfering in the private life of individuals, posing questions as to the collection and use of the data used to target said advertising, offering products or services or setting prices; reconfirms that the ePrivacy Directive makes targeted content curation subject to an opt-in decision and is otherwise prohibited;

Amendment 21 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas privacy rules with regards to electronic communications, which cover part of the digital services under discussion, are covered by the ePrivacy Directive and would be further harmonised under the ePrivacy Regulation;

Amendment 210 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Paul TANG

Motion for a resolution
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

16. ~~Deems that accountability- and~~Underlines 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 212 #

Caterina CHINNICI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Javier MORENO SÁNCHEZ, Laura FERRARA, Brando BENIFEI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Deems that accountability- and evidence-based policy making requires robust data on the prevalence and removal of illegal content online, as well as the incidence and prevention of illegal activity online, particularly against children and other vulnerable groups;

Amendment 213 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

~~16.~~ Deems that accountability- and ~~16.~~ evidence-based policy making requires robust data on the prevalence and removal of illegal content online, as well as on the content curation algorithms of online platforms;

Amendment 214 #

Kris PEETERS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Paulo RANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Deems that accountability-, both in the private and public sector, and evidence-based policy making requires robust data on the prevalence and removal of illegal content online;

Amendment 215 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Calls, in this regard, for a regular public reporting obligation for platforms, proportionate to their scale of reach and operational capacities, more specifically on their content moderation procedures, including standardised data about the amount of content removed and the underlying reasons, the type and justification of removal requests received, the number of requests whose execution was refused and the reasons therefore;

Amendment 216 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Clare DALY, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Calls, in this regard, for a regular, comprehensive and consistent public reporting obligation for platforms, proportionate to their scale of reach and operational capacities, including inter alia information on adopted measures against illegal activities online, number of removed illegal material, number and outcome of internal complaints and judicial remedy;

Amendment 217 #

Caterina CHINNICI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Javier MORENO SÁNCHEZ, Laura FERRARA, Brando BENIFEI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Calls, in this regard, for a regular annual public reporting obligation for platforms, proportionate to their scale of reach and operational capacities; stresses that such reports, covering actions taken in the year preceding the year of submission, should be submitted by the end of the first quarter of that year;

Amendment 218 #

17. Calls, in this regard, for a regular public reporting obligation for platforms, proportionate to their scale of reach and operational capacities; in the case of child sexual abuse, the reporting should be done to the EU Centre for Preventing and Combating child sexual abuse;

Amendment 219 #

Caterina CHINNICI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Javier MORENO SÁNCHEZ, Laura FERRARA, Brando BENIFEI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Calls, in this regard, for a regular, comprehensive and consistent public reporting obligation for platforms, proportionate to their scale of reach and operational capacities;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the amount of user- generated content, including harmful and illegal content, such as images depicting Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) online, shared via cloud services or online platforms has increased exponentially at an unprecedented pace;

Amendment 220 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Calls~~, in this regard, for a regular public reporting~~ for large commercial obnli~~gation for platforms, proportionate to their scale of reach and operational capacities~~ne platforms to make their procedures and decisions to remove content publicly available;

Amendment 221 #

Kris PEETERS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Paulo RANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Calls, moreover, for a regular public reporting obligation for national authorities, including standardised data on the number of removal requests and their legal bases, on the number of removal requests which were subject to administrative or judicial remedies, on the outcome of these proceedings, and on the total number of decisions imposing penalties, including a description of the type of penalty imposed;

Amendment 222 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Clare DALY, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Calls, moreover, for a regular public reporting obligation for national authorities, including inter alia information on the number of removal orders, on the number of identified illegal content or activities which led to investigation and prosecution, and the number of cases of content or activities wrongly identified as illegal;

Amendment 223 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

Amendment 224 #

Motion for a resolution
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 225 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Calls, moreover, for a regular annual public reporting obligation for national authorities;

Amendment 226 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Expresses its concern regarding the ~~fragmentation of public oversight and supervision of platforms and the frequent~~documented 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 227 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Expresses its concern regarding the fragmentation of public oversight and supervision of online platforms and other digital service providers and the frequent lack of financial and human resources ~~for~~that the 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)

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 229 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 23 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the amount of user~~- generated content, including harmful and illegal content~~vices available and users' activities, including illegal services and activities, shared via cloud services or online platforms, has increased exponentially;

Amendment 230 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 231 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Supports the creation of an independent EU body to exercise effective oversight of compliance with the applicable rules; believes that it should enforce procedural safeguards and transparency and provide quick and reliable guidance on contexts in which legal content is to be considered harmful; Calls on the Commission to set up, similarly to the European system of financial supervision (ESFS), a European system of digital services' supervision and to task existing EU agencies and competent national supervisory authorities to audit digital service providers’ internal policies and algorithms with due regard to Union law and in all circumstances to the fundamental rights of the services’ users, taking into account the fundamental importance of non-discrimination and the freedom of expression and information in an open and democratic society, and without publishing commercially sensitive data. Requests that this European system of digital services' supervision ensures that the rules applicable to digital service providers are adequately implemented and enforced across Member States in order to provide protection for the services’ users and to facilitate a European digital single market.

Amendment 232 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Supports the creation of an independent EU body~~Calls on the Commission to exercise effective oversight of compliance with the applicable rules~~; believes that it should~~, in particular the enforcement of procedural safeguards and transparency ~~and provide quick and reliable guidance on contexts in which legal content is to be considered harmful~~;

Amendment 233 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Supports the creation of an independent EU body to exercise effective oversight of compliance with the applicable rules; ~~believ~~stresses that it should guarantee a harmonised implementation of these rules across the Union and enforce procedural safeguards and transparency ~~and provide quick and~~; believes that it should provide reliable guidance on contexts in which legal content is to be considered harmful;

Amendment 234 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Supports the ~~creation of an independent EU body to~~ exercise of effective oversight of compliance with the applicable rules; believes that it should enforce procedural safeguards and transparency and provide quick and reliable guidance on ~~contexts in which legal content is to be considered harmful~~how illegal content is addressed;

Amendment 235 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Supports the creation of an ~~independent EU body~~enforcement mechanism coordinated at EU level, with clear allocation of responsibilities and necessary enforcement tools to exercise effective oversight of compliance with the applicable rules; believes that it should enforce procedural safeguards and transparency ~~and provide quick and reliable guidance on contexts in which legal content is to be considered harmful~~;

Amendment 236 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Considers that the transparency reports drawn up by platforms and national competent authorities should be made available to this EU body, which should be tasked with drawing up yearly reports that provide a structured analysis of illegal content removal and blocking at EU level;deleted

Amendment 237 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Considers that the transparency reports drawn up by platforms and national competent authorities should be made available to thise EU bodyies, which should be tasked with drawing up yearly reports that provide a structured analysis of illegal content removal and blocking at EU level; stresses that these reports should be published annually on the public services of the EU institutions;

Amendment 238 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Considers that the transparency reports drawn up by platforms and ~~national~~ competent authorities should be made ~~available to this EU body, which should be tasked with~~publicly available, including drawing up yearly reports that provide a structured analysis of ~~illegal content removal and blocking at EU level~~content removal at EU level; considers that cases which did not result in the removal or disabling access to content shall also be reported;

Amendment 239 #

Kris PEETERS, Paulo RANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Considers that the transparency reports drawn up by platforms and national competent authorities should be made available to this EU ~~body~~enforcement mechanism, which should be tasked with drawing up yearly reports that provide a structured analysis of illegal content removal and blocking at EU level;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the amount of user- generated content, including harmful and illegal content, shared via ~~cloud services or online platforms~~online platforms, including cloud services, has increased exponentially;

Amendment 240 #

Caterina CHINNICI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Javier MORENO SÁNCHEZ, Laura FERRARA, Brando BENIFEI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

Amendment 241 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Considers that the transparency reports drawn up by platforms and national competent authorities should be made available to th~~is EU body~~e Commission, which should be tasked with drawing up yearly reports that provide a structured analysis of illegal content removal and blocking at EU level;

Amendment 242 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Stresses that this EU body should not take on the role of content moderator, but that it should analyse, upon complaint or on its own initiative, whether and how digital service providers amplify illegal content; calls for this regulator to have the power to impose proportionate fines or other corrective actions when platforms do not provide sufficient information on their procedures or algorithms in a timely manner;deleted

Amendment 243 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

Amendment 244 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Stresses that this EU body should not take on the role of content moderator, but that it should analyse, upon complaint or on its own initiative, whether and how digital service providers amplify illegal content; calls for this regulatorCalls for the competent authority to have the power to impose proportionate fines or other corrective actions when platforms do not provide sufficient information on their procedures or algorithms in a timely manner;

Amendment 245 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Stresses that this EU body should not take on the role of content moderator, but that it should analyse, upon complaint or on its own initiative, whether and how digital service providers amplify illegal content, for example recommendation engines and optimisation features such as autocomplete and trending; calls for this regulator to have the power to impose proportionate fines or other corrective actions when platforms do not provide sufficient information on their procedures or algorithms in a timely manner;

Amendment 246 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Stresses that thise EU ~~body~~institutions should not take on the role of content moderator, but that ithey should analyse, upon complaint or on its own initiative, whether and how digital service providers amplify illegal content; calls for th~~is regulator~~e EU institutions to have the power to i~~mpose proportionate fines or other~~ndicate corrective actions when platforms do not provide sufficient information on their procedures or algorithms in a timely manner;

Amendment 247 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Clare DALY, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Stresses that this EU ~~body~~enforcement mechanism should not take on the role of content moderator, but that it should analyse, upon complaint or on its own initiative, whether and how digital service providers amplify illegal content; calls for this regulator to have the power to impose proportionate fines or other corrective actions when platforms do not provide sufficient information on their procedures or algorithms in a timely manner;

Amendment 248 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Is concerned that the increased use of automated decision making and machine learning for purposes such as identification, prediction of behaviour or targeted advertising leads to exacerbated direct and indirect discrimination based on grounds such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation when using digital services; insists that the Digital Services Act must aim to ensure a high level of transparency as regards the functioning of online services and a digital environment free of discrimination;

Amendment 249 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Considers it necessary, given the increasing fragmentation of national laws on tackling illegal content, to strengthen cooperation mechanisms between the Member States, including with the support of the Commission and the EU agencies; underlines the importance of such a dialogue, in particular on countries' differing opinions as to whether content is illegal or not and its potential impact;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
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 250 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Welcomes the Commission initiative to create a European Digital Media Observatory to support independent fact-checking services, increase public knowledge on online disinformation and support public authorities in charge of monitoring digital media;

Amendment 251 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)

22b. Is concerned that the increased use of automated decision making and machine learning for purposes such as identification, prediction of behaviour or targeted advertising may lead to exacerbated direct and indirect discrimination based on grounds such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation when using digital services; insists that the Digital Services Act must aim to ensure a high level of transparency as regards the functioning of online services and a digital environment free of discrimination;

Amendment 252 #

Caterina CHINNICI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Javier MORENO SÁNCHEZ, Laura FERRARA, Brando BENIFEI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)

22b. Considers it necessary also to strengthen marketplace liability by means of a specific liability regime in order to protect consumers from dangerous products, particularly through information and transparency, and to guarantee their rights;

Amendment 253 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Underlines the importance of empowering users to enforce their own fundamental rights online, including by means of easily accessible complaint procedures, ~~legal remedies, educational measures and awareness-raising on data protection issu~~reporting mechanisms for illegal content and criminal behaviour for individuals and companies, legal remedies, educational measures, , including the sharing of advice on child online safety, awareness-raising on data protection issues and online safety and the provision of access to cost-free child helplines and age-appropriate services;

Amendment 254 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Clare DALY, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Underlines the importance of empowering users to enforce their own fundamental rights online, including by means of ~~easily accessibl~~transparency obligations for online services and easily accessible, impartial, efficient and free complaint procedures, legal remedies, educational measures and awareness-raising on data protection issues;

Amendment 255 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Underlines the importance of empowering users to enforce their own fundamental rights online, including by means of easily accessible, impartial, efficient and free complaint procedures, legal remedies, educational measures and awareness-raising on data protection issues;

Amendment 256 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Underlines that in order to fully enjoy fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression and access to information, developed media literacy skills remain crucial; recalls the fundamental role of media literacy as one of the primary solutions to growing disinformation- and hate speech-related issues, and calls on the Commission and Member States to improve media literacy through support for educational initiatives aimed at both students and professional educators, as well as through targeted awareness-raising campaigns within civil society;

Amendment 257 #

Motion for a resolution
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 258 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Further to empowering users to their fundamental rights online, calls on the Commission to ensure that users have access to diverse and quality content online as a mean towards an informed citizenship; in this respect calls on the Commission to propose safeguards ensuring quality media content is easy to access and easy to find on third-party platforms;

Amendment 259 #

Tomas TOBÉ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Further calls on the Commission to establish a framework that avoids platforms from exercising a second layer of control over content that is provided under a media service provider’s responsibility and which is subject to specific standards and oversight;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the ~~amount of user- generated content, including harmfu~~spread of legal and illegal content, shared via cloud services or online platforms, has ~~increased exponentially~~been facilitated by advanced technologies;

Amendment 260 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Requests that digital services providers to the maximum extent possible give their users the possibility to choose which content they want to be presented and in which order.

Amendment 261 #

Motion for a resolution
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;

Amendment 262 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)

23b. Further to empowering users to their fundamental rights online, calls on the Commission to ensure that users have access to diverse and quality content online as a mean towards an informed citizenship; in this respect calls on the Commission to propose safeguards ensuring quality media content is easy to access and easy to find on third party platforms;

Amendment 263 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)

23b. Further calls on the Commission to establish new rules that proscribe platforms’ practices interfering with media freedom and pluralism, in particular by prohibiting platforms from exercising a second layer of control over content that is provided under a media service provider’s responsibility and which is subject to specific standards and oversight;

Amendment 264 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)

23b. Requests, based on the principles above, that the Digital Services Act harmonises and replaces the liability measures laid down in the Digital Single Market Copyright Directive, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the Terrorist Content Online Regulation.

Amendment 265 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 c (new)

23c. Strongly underlines the importance of media pluralism, public service media and independent as well as non-commercial media for citizen’s access to quality information; firmly believes that disinformation and “fake news” can only be curbed by public access to high-quality information and education; underlines the importance of mechanisms that support independent media and public service media;

Amendment 266 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24a. Recommends the Commission to create a verification system for users of digital services, in order to ensure the protection of personal data and age verification, especially for minors, which shall not be used to track the users cross- site nor used commercially;

Amendment 267 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 c (new)

24c. Notes unnecessary collection of personal data by digital services at the point of registration for a service, such as date and place of birth, cell phone number and postal address, often caused by the use of single-sign in possibilities; Underlines that the GDPR clearly describes the data minimisation principle, thereby limiting the collected data to only that strictly necessary for the purpose; Asks therefore the Commission to create a single European sign-in system and to introduce an obligation to always also offer a manual sign-in option;

Amendment 27 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Paul TANG

Motion for a resolution
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)

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 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
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 3 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5

— having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (‘General Data Protection Regulation’, GDPR)2 , _________________ 2 OJ L 119 4.5.2016, p. 1.

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

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 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas a small number of mostly non-European large service providers have ~~significant market power~~an increasing capacity to influence public opinion and exert influence on the rights and freedoms of individuals, our societies and democracies; whereas, more specifically, large platforms’ decisions can have far-reaching consequences for the exercise of freedom of expression and information, and for media freedom and pluralism;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas a small number of mostly non-European service providers have ~~significant~~monopoly over the market ~~power~~ and exert influence on the rights and freedoms of individuals, our societies and democracies, thus also giving them enormous influence on the functioning of all Community countries and their citizens;

Amendment 34 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Clare DALY, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas a small number of mostly non-European service providers have significant market power and exert influence on the rights and freedoms of individuals, our societies and democracies; whereas such service providers have to comply with the GDPR when offering services in the Union:

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas a small number of mostly non-European service providers have significant market power and exert influence over suppliers and control how information, services and products are presented, thereby having an impact on the rights and freedoms of individuals, and our societies ~~and democracies~~;

Amendment 36 #

Kris PEETERS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Paulo RANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the political approach to tackle harmful and illegal content online in the EU has mainly focused on voluntary cooperation thus far, but a growing number of Member States are adopting national legislation to address illegal content and provisions to address certain types of content were included in recent sectoral legislation at EU level;

Amendment 37 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Clare DALY, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the political approach to tackle ~~harmful and~~ illegal content online in the EU has mainly focused on voluntary cooperation thus far, but a growing number of Member States are adopting national legislation to address illegal content in a non- harmonised manner;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the poli~~tical~~cy approach to tackle harmful and illegal ~~content~~activities online in the EU has mainly focused on voluntary cooperation thus far, but a growing number of Member States are adopting national legislation to address illegal content;

Amendment 39 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the ~~political~~ approach to tackle ~~harmful and~~ illegal content online in the EU ~~has mainly focused on voluntary cooperation thus far~~is based on court order mandated takedowns, but a growing number of Member States are adopting further national legislation to address illegal content;

Amendment 4 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
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 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas online hate speech and disinformation have grown increasingly widespread in recent years as individuals and disruptive actors use the power of online platforms to spread hateful or false information; whereas this harms the collective public interest as harmful content undermines respectful and honest public discourse, and poses threats to public safety given that online hate speech can incite real-world violence;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)

Eb. whereas online hate speech and disinformation are increasingly being used as tools to increase social polarization, which is in turn exploited for political purposes; whereas combating them is not only relevant to the domain of human rights, but is also a fundamental factor in terms of the defence of the rule of law and democracy in the EU;

Amendment 42 #

Nadine MORANO

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

~~F. whereas some forms of harmful content may be legal, yet detrimental to society or democracy, with examples such as opaque political advertising and disinformation on COVID-19 causes and remedies;~~deleted

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas some forms of harmful content may be legal, yet detrimental to society or democracy~~, with examples such as opaque political advertising and disinformation on COVID-19 causes and remedies~~;

Amendment 44 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas some forms of ~~harmful~~ content ~~may b~~are legal, yet ~~detrimental to~~may have negative effects on society or democracy, with examples such as opaque political advertising and disinformation ~~on COVID-19 causes and remedies~~;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
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 46 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas some forms of ~~harmful~~ content may be legal, yet detrimental to society or democracy, with examples such as opaque political advertising and disinformation on COVID-19 causes and remedies;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
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 content~~content 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 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas a pure self-regulatory approach of platforms does not provide adequate transparency, accountability and oversight to public authorities, civil society and users on how platforms address illegal ~~and harmful content~~content and how they curate content in general; whereas such an approach ~~does~~es may not guarantee compliance with fundamental rights;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas a pure self-regulatory approach of platforms does not provide adequate transparency to public authorities, civil society and users on how platforms address illegal and harmful content; whereas such an approach does not guarantee compliance with fundamental rights;(Does not affect the English version.)

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 c (new)

— having regard to Directive (EU) 2018/1808 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’) in view of changing market realities;

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas a pure self-regulatory approach of platforms ~~does~~may not provide adequate transparency to public authorities, civil society and users on how platforms address illegal and harmful content; whereas such an approach ~~does~~may not guarantee compliance with fundamental rights;

Amendment 51 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas a pure self-regulatory approach of platforms does not provide adequate transparency to public authorities, civil society and users on how platforms address illegal a~~nd harmful content~~ctivities; whereas such an approach does not guarantee compliance with fundamental rights;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas regulatory oversight and supervision ~~of platforms lacks horizontal~~is sector-specific in the EU; whereas further and more comprehensive coordination between the different oversight bodies across the EU would be beneficial;

Amendment 53 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas the absence of uniform and transparent rules for procedural safeguards across the EU is a key obstacle for persons affected by illegal content online and content providers seeking to exercise their rights;deleted

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

Amendment 55 #

Kris PEETERS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Javier ZARZALEJOS, Paulo RANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas the absence of uniform and transparent rules for procedural safeguards across the EU is a key obstacle for persons affected by illegal ~~content~~activities online and content providers, including users, seeking to exercise their rights;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas the lack of robust public data on the prevalence and removal of illegal and harmful content online creates a deficit of accountability, both in the private and public sector; this includes the use and underlying source codes of algorithmic processes and how platforms address the erroneous removal of content;

Amendment 57 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas the lack of robust public data on the prevalence and removal of illegal and harmful content online, as well as the lack of proper transparency from internet platforms and services as to the algorithms they use, creates a deficit of accountability;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
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 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas the lack of robust public data on notices and follow-up by competent authorities about, and data on the prevalence and removal of illegal ~~and harmful~~ content online creates a deficit of accountability;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)

— having regard to Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU 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)1a in view of changing market realities; _________________ 1a OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 69–92

Amendment 60 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Clare DALY, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)

Ja. whereas persons of colour, persons belonging to or who are perceived to belong to ethnic or linguistic minorities, asylum seekers, migrants, LGBTIQ persons and women often experience high levels of discriminatory hate speech, bullying, threats and scapegoating online and run high risks of experiencing so- called "shit storms";

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J b (new)

Jb. whereas algorithms used for automated decision-making or profiling often reproduce existing discriminatory patterns in society, thereby leading to a high risk of exacerbated discrimination for persons already affected.

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

K. whereas child sexual exploitation online is 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; whereas the lockdown resulting from the Covid-19 health crisis has seen a 106% rise in online traffic in child pornography according to Europol1 a; _________________ 1a Catherine de Bolle, Executive Director of Europol, in an exchange of views with Parliament's LIBE Committee on 18 May 2020.

Amendment 65 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

K. whereas child sexual exploitation online is shaped by technological developments, such as the increased use of end-to-end encryption and the dark web; 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 66 #

Motion for a resolution
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 67 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
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, a~~nd should thus~~s 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 69 #

Motion for a resolution
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 thus be removed following an order from a Member Stateutomated search tools and technologies to assess if content is equivalent to content previously declared unlawful are unreliable and do not provide adequate protection for freedom of expression and civil liberties online; whereas any attempt to proactively filter content should be limited, and any automatic deletion of content must always be carried out under human supervision and action;

Amendment 7 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Clare DALY, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7

— having regard to Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA4 , _________________ 4deleted OJ L 335. 17.12.2011, p.1.

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
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 thus be removed following an order from a Member State, but they are not obliged to use such automated tools;

Amendment 71 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
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 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)

La. whereas the internet and internet platforms are still a key location for terrorist groups’ activities, and they are used as a tool for sowing propaganda, recruitment and promotion of their activities;

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Underlines that digital services and their underlying algorithms need to fully respect fundamental rights, especially the protection of privacy and personal data, non-discrimination and the freedom of speech and information, as enshrined in the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union;

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Stresses that the reform of the current liability regime for digital service providers must be proportionate, must not disadvantage small and medium sized companies, and must not limit innovation, access to information, and freedom of expression.

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)

-1a. Emphasises that the rapid development of digital services requires strong legislation to protect privacy; stresses therefore in this regard that all digital services need to fully respect Union data protection and privacy law, namely Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (GDPR) and Directive (EC) 2002/58 of the European Parliament and of the Council (ePrivacy) currently under revision, and the freedom of expression;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 b (new)

-1b. Stresses that in line with the principle of data minimisation established by the General Data Protection Regulation, the Digital Services Act shall require intermediaries to enable the anonymous use of their services and payment for them wherever it is technically possible, as anonymity effectively prevents unauthorized disclosure, identity theft and other forms of abuse of personal data collected online; only where existing legislation requires businesses to communicate their identity, providers of major market places could be obliged to verify their identity, while in other cases the right to use digital services anonymously shall be upheld;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 c (new)

-1c. Notes that since the online activities of an individual allow for deep insights into their personality and make it possible to manipulate them, the general and indiscriminate collection of personal data concerning every use of a digital service interferes disproportionately with the right to privacy and the protection of personal data; confirms that users have a right not to be subject to pervasive tracking when using digital services; stresses that in the spirit of the jurisprudence on communications metadata, public authorities shall be given access to a user’s subscriber and metadata only to investigate suspects of serious crime with prior judicial authorisation;

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 d (new)

-1d. Is concerned that single sign-in services can be used to track users across platforms; therefore opposes the creation of a single Union sign-in system; recommends that providers which support a single sign-in service with a dominant market share should be required to also support at least one open and federated identity system based on a non-proprietary framework;

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 e (new)

-1e. Stresses that in order to overcome the lock-in effect of centralised networks and to ensure competition and consumer choice, users of dominant social media services and messaging services shall be given a right to cross-platform interaction via open interfaces (interconnectivity); highlights that these users shall be able to interact with users of alternative services, and that the users of alternative services shall be allowed to interact with them;

Amendment 8 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Clare DALY, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

~~1. Stresses that illegal content online 1. should be tackled with the same rigour as illegal content offline~~Urges the Commission to adopt a comprehensive and tailored regulatory approach to address all challenges raised by the diversity of actors and services offered online; in particular, stresses that the new horizontal framework should distinguish commercial activities on online market places from other intermediaries’ activities that have an impact on the freedom of expression and information; considers essential to apply different regulatory approaches to illegal and legal content. Stresses that illegal activities online should be tackled with the same rigour as illegal activities offline, and with the same guarantees for citizens;

Amendment 81 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that illegal content online ~~should be tackled with the same rigour as illegal content offline~~is 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 82 #

Caterina CHINNICI, Hilde VAUTMANS, Javier MORENO SÁNCHEZ, Laura FERRARA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that illegal content and cyber-enabled crimes, such as child sexual exploitation online, should be tackled with the same rigour as illegal content and behaviour offline;

Amendment 83 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that illegal content online should be tackled with the same rigour and based on the same legal principles as illegal content offline;

Amendment 84 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Points out that the Digital Services Act shall not use the legally undefined concept of “harmful content”, but shall address the publication of content that is unlawful; emphasizes that the spreading of false statements on social media should be contained by giving users control over content proposed to them; stresses that curating content on the basis of tracking user actions shall require the user’s consent; proposes that users of social networks should have a right to see their timeline in chronological order; suggests that dominant platforms shall provide users with an interface to have content curated by software or services of their choice

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
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 86 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Is convinced that it is solely the task of democratically accountable competent public authorities to decide on the legality of content online.

Amendment 87 #

Marina KALJURAND, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN, Paul TANG

Motion for a resolution
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 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Stresses that digital service providers must only be mandated to take their users’ content offline based on sufficiently substantiated orders by democratically accountable competent public authorities.

Amendment 89 #

Motion for a resolution
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 data protection are respected; calls for a minimum level of intervention based on the principles of necessity and proportionality; Emphasises that the rapid development of digital services requires a strong futureproof legislative framework to protect personal data and privacy; Stresses therefore in this regard that all digital services need to fully respect Union data protection law, namely Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (GDPR)1a and Directive (EC) 2002/58 of the European Parliament and of the Council (ePrivacy1a currently under revision, the freedom of expression and non- discrimination; _________________ 1aRegulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37).1a Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37).

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)

— having regard to Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC ('Copyright Directive'),1 a _________________ 1a OJ L 130, 17.5.2019, p. 92.

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Believes in the clear societal and economic benefits of a functioning digital single market for the EU and its Member States; welcomes these benefits, in particular improved access to information and the strengthening of the freedom of expression; stresses the important obligation to ensure a fair digital ecosystem in which fundamental rights and data protection are respected; calls for a minimum level of intervention based on the principles of necessity and proportionality;

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
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 - including freedom of expression and information, and media freedom and pluralism - and data protection are respected; calls for a minimum level of intervention based on the principles of necessity and proportionality;

Amendment 92 #

Motion for a resolution
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 data protection are respected and in which citizens' online digital security is guaranteed; calls for a ~~minimum~~ level of intervention based on the principles of necessity and proportionality;

Amendment 93 #

Motion for a resolution
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 – above all freedom of expression and information, and media freedom and pluralism – and data protection are respected; calls for a ~~minimum level of~~n intervention based on the principles of necessity and proportionality;

Amendment 94 #

Marina KALJURAND, Birgit SIPPEL, Tanja FAJON, Tudor CIUHODARU, Raphaël GLUCKSMANN

Motion for a resolution
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, including freedom of expression, privacy and data protection, are respected; calls for a minimum level of intervention based on the principles of necessity and proportionality;

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

Amendment 96 #

Cornelia ERNST, Pernando BARRENA ARZA, Clare DALY, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER

Motion for a resolution
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~~, including data protection, are respected; calls for a ~~minimum level of~~comprehensive and effective regulatory intervention based on the principles of necessity and proportionality;

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Underlines that digital services and their underlying algorithms need to fully respect fundamental rights, especially privacy, the protection of personal data, non-discrimination and the freedom of expression and information, as enshrined in the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union; Calls therefore on the Commission to implement an obligation of transparency and explainability of algorithms, penalties to enforce such obligations, and the possibility of human intervention, as well as other measures, such as independent audits and specific stress tests to assist and enforce compliance; believes that such independent audits should be conducted annually, in analogy with the financial sector, to examine whether the used data policy, algorithms and checks and balances are in accordance with specified criteria and are supervised by an independent sufficient overseeing authority;

Amendment 98 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Is convinced that digital service providers must not retain data for law enforcement purposes unless a targeted retention of an individual user’s data is directly ordered by a democratically accountable competent public authority in line with Union law.

Amendment 99 #