Normativity in the EU’s Approach towards Disinformation

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW
Anna Kobernjuk, A. Kasper
{"title":"Normativity in the EU’s Approach towards Disinformation","authors":"Anna Kobernjuk, A. Kasper","doi":"10.2478/bjes-2021-0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract With the rapid growth of disinformation, two major steps were taken to battle the phenomenon in the online environment—first on the global level, and second on the European Union level. The first step is the Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and “Fake News”, Disinformation and Propaganda, which provides a general overview of possible actions to be taken to fight disinformation, and how “things should be”. The steps are connected to following human rights standards, promoting the diversity of media, and paying special attention to intermediaries and media outlets. The second one is the Code of Practice on Disinformation, which is a self-regulatory document that can be voluntarily signed by major social media platforms and advertising bodies, and its main focus is making political advertising coherent and clear, preventing the creation of fake accounts, providing users with tools to report disinformation, and promote further research. Nevertheless, based on the reports and criticism from stakeholders, the Code of Practice has not reached a common ground regarding definitions, it has provided no mechanism to access the development, and has had several other drawbacks which need additional attention and discussion. The article is devoted to identifying gaps in the Code of Practice on Disinformation based on the reports and criticism provided by the stakeholders and elaborating on possible practices to regulate the legal issues raised by disinformation on the European Union level. We use doctrinal and comparative methods in the work. The doctrinal method targets the cluster that was identified in order to analyze the Code of Practice, identifies weak spots and inconsistencies, and offers solutions from different areas of law. The comparative method was selected since in several areas of law, such as human rights and consumer protection law, the previously identified approaches will be addressed to find the best outcomes. This combination of methods allows an in-depth understanding of legal documents and identifying successful solutions, which can influence further development based on efficient examples.","PeriodicalId":29836,"journal":{"name":"TalTech Journal of European Studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"170 - 202"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TalTech Journal of European Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2021-0011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract With the rapid growth of disinformation, two major steps were taken to battle the phenomenon in the online environment—first on the global level, and second on the European Union level. The first step is the Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and “Fake News”, Disinformation and Propaganda, which provides a general overview of possible actions to be taken to fight disinformation, and how “things should be”. The steps are connected to following human rights standards, promoting the diversity of media, and paying special attention to intermediaries and media outlets. The second one is the Code of Practice on Disinformation, which is a self-regulatory document that can be voluntarily signed by major social media platforms and advertising bodies, and its main focus is making political advertising coherent and clear, preventing the creation of fake accounts, providing users with tools to report disinformation, and promote further research. Nevertheless, based on the reports and criticism from stakeholders, the Code of Practice has not reached a common ground regarding definitions, it has provided no mechanism to access the development, and has had several other drawbacks which need additional attention and discussion. The article is devoted to identifying gaps in the Code of Practice on Disinformation based on the reports and criticism provided by the stakeholders and elaborating on possible practices to regulate the legal issues raised by disinformation on the European Union level. We use doctrinal and comparative methods in the work. The doctrinal method targets the cluster that was identified in order to analyze the Code of Practice, identifies weak spots and inconsistencies, and offers solutions from different areas of law. The comparative method was selected since in several areas of law, such as human rights and consumer protection law, the previously identified approaches will be addressed to find the best outcomes. This combination of methods allows an in-depth understanding of legal documents and identifying successful solutions, which can influence further development based on efficient examples.
欧盟应对虚假信息的规范性
摘要随着虚假信息的快速增长,我们采取了两个主要步骤来应对网络环境中的这一现象——第一个是在全球层面,第二个是在欧盟层面。第一步是《言论自由与“假新闻”、虚假信息和宣传联合宣言》,该宣言概述了打击虚假信息的可能行动,以及“情况应该如何”。这些步骤涉及遵循人权标准,促进媒体的多样性,并特别关注中介机构和媒体渠道。第二个是《虚假信息行为准则》,这是一份可以由主要社交媒体平台和广告机构自愿签署的自律文件,其主要重点是使政治广告连贯清晰,防止创建虚假账户,为用户提供举报虚假信息的工具,并促进进一步的研究。然而,根据利益攸关方的报告和批评,《业务守则》在定义方面没有达成共识,没有提供获取发展的机制,还存在其他一些需要进一步关注和讨论的缺陷。这篇文章致力于根据利益相关者提供的报告和批评,找出《虚假信息行为准则》中的漏洞,并详细阐述在欧盟层面监管虚假信息引发的法律问题的可能做法。我们在工作中使用了理论方法和比较方法。理论方法针对为分析《业务守则》而确定的集群,确定薄弱环节和不一致之处,并提供不同法律领域的解决方案。之所以选择比较方法,是因为在人权和消费者保护法等几个法律领域,将采用以前确定的方法,以找到最佳结果。这种方法的结合使人们能够深入了解法律文件并确定成功的解决方案,这可以影响基于有效例子的进一步发展。
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
1.90
自引率
62.50%
发文量
8
×
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