'I See Something You Don't See'. A Computational Analysis of the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act

Fabiana Di Porto, Tatjana Grote, Gabriele Volpi, Riccardo invernizzi
{"title":"'I See Something You Don't See'. A Computational Analysis of the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act","authors":"Fabiana Di Porto, Tatjana Grote, Gabriele Volpi, Riccardo invernizzi","doi":"10.51868/6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In its latest proposals, the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA), the European Commission puts forward several new obligations for online intermediaries, especially large online platforms and “gatekeepers.” Both are expected to serve as a blueprint for regulation in the United States, where lawmakers have also been investigating competition on digital platforms and new antitrust laws passed the House Judiciary Committee as of June 11, 2021. This Article investigates whether all stakeholder groups share the same understanding and use of the relevant terms and concepts of the DSA and DMA. Leveraging the power of computational text analysis, we find significant differences in the employment of terms like “gatekeepers,” “self-preferencing,” “collusion,” and others in the position papers of the consultation process that informed the drafting of the two latest Commission proposals. Added to that, sentiment analysis shows that in some cases these differences also come with dissimilar attitudes. While this may not be surprising for new concepts such as gatekeepers or self-preferencing, the same is not true for other terms, like “self-regulatory,” which not only is used differently by stakeholders but is also viewed more favorably by medium and big companies and organizations than by small ones. We conclude by sketching out how different computational text analysis tools, could be combined to provide many helpful insights for both rulemakers and legal scholars.","PeriodicalId":363330,"journal":{"name":"Computation Theory eJournal","volume":"1176 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computation Theory eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51868/6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

In its latest proposals, the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA), the European Commission puts forward several new obligations for online intermediaries, especially large online platforms and “gatekeepers.” Both are expected to serve as a blueprint for regulation in the United States, where lawmakers have also been investigating competition on digital platforms and new antitrust laws passed the House Judiciary Committee as of June 11, 2021. This Article investigates whether all stakeholder groups share the same understanding and use of the relevant terms and concepts of the DSA and DMA. Leveraging the power of computational text analysis, we find significant differences in the employment of terms like “gatekeepers,” “self-preferencing,” “collusion,” and others in the position papers of the consultation process that informed the drafting of the two latest Commission proposals. Added to that, sentiment analysis shows that in some cases these differences also come with dissimilar attitudes. While this may not be surprising for new concepts such as gatekeepers or self-preferencing, the same is not true for other terms, like “self-regulatory,” which not only is used differently by stakeholders but is also viewed more favorably by medium and big companies and organizations than by small ones. We conclude by sketching out how different computational text analysis tools, could be combined to provide many helpful insights for both rulemakers and legal scholars.
“我看到了你看不到的东西”。《数字服务法》和《数字市场法》的计算分析
在其最新提案《数字市场法》(DMA)和《数字服务法》(DSA)中,欧盟委员会为在线中介机构,特别是大型在线平台和“看门人”提出了几项新的义务。预计这两项法案都将成为美国监管的蓝图,美国立法者也一直在调查数字平台上的竞争,众议院司法委员会于2021年6月11日通过了新的反垄断法。本文调查了所有利益相关者群体是否对DSA和DMA的相关术语和概念有相同的理解和使用。利用计算文本分析的力量,我们发现在咨询过程的立场文件中,“看门人”、“自我偏好”、“勾结”等术语的使用存在显著差异,这些术语为起草两项最新的委员会提案提供了信息。此外,情绪分析表明,在某些情况下,这些差异也伴随着不同的态度。虽然对于守门人或自我偏好等新概念来说,这可能并不令人惊讶,但对于其他术语,如“自我监管”,情况并非如此,它不仅被利益相关者不同地使用,而且被大中型公司和组织比小型公司和组织更青睐。最后,我们概述了不同的计算文本分析工具如何结合起来,为规则制定者和法律学者提供许多有用的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信