The Legal Issue of Deterrence of Algorithmic Control of Digital Platforms: The Experience of China, the European Union, Russia and India

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
Y. Kharitonova, N. S. Malik, T. Yang
{"title":"The Legal Issue of Deterrence of Algorithmic Control of Digital Platforms: The Experience of China, the European Union, Russia and India","authors":"Y. Kharitonova, N. S. Malik, T. Yang","doi":"10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-1-147-170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The authorities in a number of states are concerned about the need for public disclosure of the recommendation algorithms that are used in online services. The introduction of regulations aimed at software developers is frequently proposed as a potential solution to this problem of algorithm transparency. These requirements, which must be fulfilled by the developers of software products, can be administrative regulations or standards regulations. However, despite these efforts, in the absence of direct legislative regulation, users continue to encounter the possibility that a social network feed or a search service result may present content that is unequal or unclear. This is due to the fact that the logic behind these recommendations is not clear and is concealed by IT giants. The following are among the main provisions of legislative initiatives: the liability of digital platforms to publish the mechanisms of recommendation services, the responsibility to inform the user about the processing of personal data and the possibility for the user to refuse such processing. States have recognized the problem and are approaching it from different positions. Each region chooses what to prioritize in terms of the law. We see that for China and Europe, all areas of platforms are important, whereas for Russia, news platforms and video hosting are of interest and for India, social media is the most important platform category. However, in all of the countries, the requirements for the disclosure of the recommendation engine to a certain extent are expanding. The amount of information that is publicly available as well as the order in which it is disclosed are both variable. This study demonstrates the commonalities and differences in the approaches taken by various countries.","PeriodicalId":41782,"journal":{"name":"BRICS Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BRICS Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-1-147-170","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The authorities in a number of states are concerned about the need for public disclosure of the recommendation algorithms that are used in online services. The introduction of regulations aimed at software developers is frequently proposed as a potential solution to this problem of algorithm transparency. These requirements, which must be fulfilled by the developers of software products, can be administrative regulations or standards regulations. However, despite these efforts, in the absence of direct legislative regulation, users continue to encounter the possibility that a social network feed or a search service result may present content that is unequal or unclear. This is due to the fact that the logic behind these recommendations is not clear and is concealed by IT giants. The following are among the main provisions of legislative initiatives: the liability of digital platforms to publish the mechanisms of recommendation services, the responsibility to inform the user about the processing of personal data and the possibility for the user to refuse such processing. States have recognized the problem and are approaching it from different positions. Each region chooses what to prioritize in terms of the law. We see that for China and Europe, all areas of platforms are important, whereas for Russia, news platforms and video hosting are of interest and for India, social media is the most important platform category. However, in all of the countries, the requirements for the disclosure of the recommendation engine to a certain extent are expanding. The amount of information that is publicly available as well as the order in which it is disclosed are both variable. This study demonstrates the commonalities and differences in the approaches taken by various countries.
数字平台算法控制威慑的法律问题——中国、欧盟、俄罗斯和印度的经验
一些州的当局担心有必要公开披露在线服务中使用的推荐算法。针对软件开发人员的法规的引入经常被认为是算法透明度问题的潜在解决方案。这些要求必须由软件产品的开发人员来满足,可以是行政法规,也可以是标准法规。然而,尽管做出了这些努力,在没有直接立法监管的情况下,用户仍然会遇到社交网络订阅源或搜索服务结果可能呈现不平等或不明确的内容的可能性。这是因为这些建议背后的逻辑并不清楚,而且被IT巨头所掩盖。以下是立法举措的主要条款:数字平台发布推荐服务机制的责任,向用户告知个人数据处理情况的责任,以及用户拒绝此类处理的可能性。各国已经认识到这一问题,并正在从不同的立场处理这一问题。每个地区根据法律选择优先事项。我们看到,对中国和欧洲来说,平台的所有领域都很重要,而对俄罗斯来说,新闻平台和视频托管很重要,对印度来说,社交媒体是最重要的平台类别。然而,在所有国家,对推荐引擎披露的要求在一定程度上都在扩大。公开信息的数量和披露顺序都是可变的。这项研究表明了各国采取的方法的共性和差异。
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
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
25.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: The BRICS is an acronym for an association of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, evolved from mere investment lingo to an organized network, in the process assuming a greater geopolitical role aimed at institutional reforms that shift global power. All five countries adhere to principles of inclusive macroeconomic and social policies and are focusing on responsible national growth strategies. The BRICS Law Journal is a platform for relevant comparative research and legal development not only in and between the BRICS countries themselves but also between those countries and others. The journal is an open forum for legal scholars and practitioners to reflect on issues that are relevant to the BRICS and internationally significant. Prospective authors who are involved in relevant legal research, legal writing and legal development are, therefore, the main source of potential contributions.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信