The Watchdogs Network: A model for continuous monitoring of AVMSD rules | Intellect Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Digital Media & Policy
  4. Volume 14, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2516-3523
  • E-ISSN: 2516-3531

Abstract

The Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) overhaul in 2018 includes video sharing platform services (VSPs), which provide content in an automated way, including user-generated content (UGC). This change is tantamount to a paradigm shift, as these multi-sided platforms differ starkly from the actors that had previously been regulated under the AVMSD. The AVMSD seems to have answered the question, what kind of rules we need. However, problems of implementation and application will not become apparent until later, and only then will it become clear which of the VSPs’ measures are truly expedient and appropriate. To know which rules are precise enough to provide legal certainty while also dynamic enough to adapt to technological developments, we need permanent monitoring processes – as described in our governance cycle. The prerequisite for permanent monitoring processes is fair and transparent data accesses, the design of which is also a fundamental challenge, as we will explain by the house of data access. Continuous monitoring processes are complex procedures involving many layers of competence. But they are also opportunities to timely catch and quickly correct misdevelopments. By implementing the two-step watchdog model in a bigger network, undesirable developments can be recognized at an earlier stage, because watchdogs are strengthened as information purveyors.

© 2023 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/jdmp_00085_1
2023-03-24
2024-04-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ausloos, J.,, Leerssen, P., and ten Thije, P.. ( 2020;), ‘ Operationalizing research access in platform governance what to learn from other industries?. ’, 25 June, https://algorithmwatch.org/de/governing-platforms/. Accessed 3 May 2021.
  2. AVMSD ( n.d;.), ‘ Interactive searches across the national transpositions of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. ’, http://avmsd.obs.coe.int/. Accessed 1 May 2021.
  3. Baldwin, R., and Cave, M.. ( 2020), Taming the Corporation: How to Regulate for Success, Oxford:: University Press;, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198836186.001.0001. Accessed 8 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Baldwin, R.,, Cave, M., and Lodge, M.. ( 2012), Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice, Oxford:: University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Broughton Micova, S., and Jacques, S.. ( 2020;), ‘ Platform power in the video advertising ecosystem. ’, Internet Policy Review, 9:4, pp. 4–28, https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1506. Accessed 8 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bruns, A.. ( 2018;), ‘ Facebook shuts the gate after the horse has bolted, and hurts real research in the process. ’, Policy Review, 25 April, https://policyreview.info/articles/news/facebook-shuts-gate-after-horse-has-bolted-and-hurts-real-research-process/786. Accessed 3 May 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bruns, A.. ( 2019;), ‘ After the “APIcalypse”: Social media platforms and their fight against critical scholarly research. ’, Information, Communication & Society, 22:11, pp. 1544–66, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1637447. Accessed 8 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Campbell, A. J.. ( 1999;), ‘ Self-regulation and the media. ’, Federal Communications Law Journal, 51:3, pp. 711–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Christians, C. G.,, Glasser, T. L.,, McQuail, D.,, Nordenstreng, K., and White, R. A.. ( 2009), Normative Theories of the Media: Journalism in Democratic Societies, Urbana, IL:: University of Illinois Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cornils, M.. ( 2020;), ‘ Designing platform governance: A normative perspective on needs, strategies, and tools to regulate intermediaries. ’, Algorithm Watch, 26 May, https://algorithmwatch.org/de/governing-platforms/. Accessed 3 May 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Curien, N.. ( 2021;), ‘ The audiovisual industry facing the digital revolution: Plunging the predigital fishbowl into the digital ocean. ’, in S. A. Matei,, F. Rebillard, and F. Rochelandet (eds)., Digital and Social Media Regulation: A Comparative Perspective of the US and Europe, Cham:: Springer;, pp. 17–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. EMR ( 2020;), ‘ Gutachten zur Kompetenzverteilung. ’, 14 December, https://emr-sb.de/gb/gutachten_kompetenzverteilung_medien/. Accessed 1 May 2021.
  13. Epstein, R.,, Robertson, R. E.,, Lazer, D., and Wilson, C.. ( 2017;), ‘ Suppressing the search engine manipulation effect (SEME). ’, Proceedings of the ACM on Human–Computer Interaction, 1, pp. 1–22, https://doi.org/10.1145/3134677. Accessed 1 May 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. EU Commission ( 2020a;), ‘ Proposal for “Data Governance Act”. ’, Brussels:, COM/2020/767 final;.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. EU Commission ( 2020b;), ‘ Proposal for “Digital Service Act”. ’, Brussels:, COM/2020/825 final;.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. EU Commission ( 2020c;), ‘ Summary report on the European strategy for data. ’, 24 July, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/summary-report-public-consultation-european-strategy-data. Accessed 1 May 2021.
  17. EU Commission ( 2020d;), ‘ Audiovisual media: Commission opens infringement procedures…. ’, 23 November, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_2165. Accessed 3 May 2021.
  18. European Union ( 2020e), Towards a European Strategy on Business-to-Government Data Sharing for the Public Interest, 15 February, Luxembourg:, https://doi.org/10.2759/731415. Accessed 1 May 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. EU Commission ( 2021a;), ‘ Study on the implementation of the new provisions in the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD). ’, 1 February, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/study-implementation-new-provisions-revised-audiovisual-media-services-directive-avmsd. Accessed 1 May 2021.
  20. EU Commission ( 2021b;), ‘ European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA). ’, 28 June, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/european-regulators-group-audiovisual-media-services-erga. Accessed 1 May 2021.
  21. EU Commission ( 2021c;), ‘ Contact committee audiovisual media services directive. ’, 29 September, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/contact-committee-audiovisual-media-services-directive. Accessed 1 May 2021.
  22. EU Commission ( 2021d;), ‘ EU Code of Conduct against illegal hate speech online. ’, 7 October, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_5082. Accessed 22 October 2021.
  23. EU Commission ( 2021e;), ‘ Code of practice on disinformation. ’, 28 December, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-practice-disinformation. Accessed 1 May 2021.
  24. EUDAT ( 2020;), ‘ Collaborative EUDAT data infrastructure. ’, https://www.eudat.eu/. Accessed 23 October 2021.
  25. Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection ( 2017;), ‘ Network Enforcement Act. ’, 12 July, https://www.bmjv.de/DE/Themen/FokusThemen/NetzDG/NetzDG_EN_node.html. Accessed 1 May 2021.
  26. Flew, T.,, Martin, F., and Suzor, N.. ( 2019;), ‘ Internet regulation as media policy: Rethinking the question of digital communication platform governance. ’, Journal of Digital Media & Policy, 10:1, pp. 33–50, https://doi.org/10.1386/jdmp.10.1.33_1. Accessed 1 May 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Fuchsloch, S.,, von Nordheim, G., and Boczek, K.. ( 2019;), ‘ Unlocking digitized public spheres: Research opportunities and legal challenges of using text mining for content analysis. ’, in C. Peters,, T. Naab, and R. Kühne. (eds), Measuring Media Use and Exposure: Recent Developments and Challenges, Köln:: Herbert von Halem Verlag;, 12, pp. 266–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Gahntz, M.,, Neuman, K. T. J.,, Otte, P. C.,, Sältz, B. J., and Steinbach, K.. ( 2021;), ‘ Breaking the news?. ’, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, February, https://www.fes.de/medienpolitik/artikelseite/breaking-the-news. Accessed 1 May 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Germany’s Federal Office of Justice ( 2019;), ‘ Federal Office of Justice issues fine against Facebook. ’, 3 July, https://www.bundesjustizamt.de/DE/Presse/Archiv/2019/20190702_EN.html;jsessionid=9791AC96C6DB25BBC4B668A187FFC8A9.2_cid501?nn=3451904. Accessed 1 May 2021.
  30. Hanitzsch, T., and Vos, T. P.. ( 2018;), ‘ Journalism beyond democracy: A new look into journalistic roles in political and everyday life. ’, Journalism, 19:2, pp. 146–64, https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916673386. Accessed 10 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Helberger, N.. ( 2020;), ‘ The political power of platforms: How current attempts to regulate misinformation amplify opinion power. ’, Digital Journalism, 8:6, pp. 842–54, https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1773888. Accessed 10 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Helberger, N.,, Kleinen-von Königslöw, K., and van der Noll, R.. ( 2015;), ‘ Regulating the new information intermediaries as gatekeepers of information diversity. ’, Info, 17:6, pp. 50–71, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/info-05-2015-0034. Accessed 8 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. HUDOC ( 1985;), ‘ Barthold v. Germany. ’, No. 8734/79, 25 March, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57432. Accessed 3 May 2021.
  34. HUDOC ( 1986;), ‘ Lingens v. Austria. ’, No. 9815/82, 8 July, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57523. Accessed 3 May 2021.
  35. HUDOC ( 1996;), ‘ Goodwin v. UK. ’, No. 17488/90, 27 March, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-57974. Accessed 3 May 2021.
  36. HUDOC ( 2014;), ‘ Österreichische Vereinigung… v. Austria. ’, No. 39534/07, 28 November, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-139084. Accessed 3 May 2021.
  37. Jarren, O.. ( 2019;), ‘ Fundamentale Institutionalisierung: Social Media als neue globale Kommunikationsinfrastruktur. ’, Publizistik, 64:2, pp. 163–79, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-019-00503-4. Accessed 1 May 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Kettemann, M. C.. ( 2020), The Normative Order of the Internet: A Theory of Rule and Regulation Online, Oxford:: Oxford University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Koltay, A.. ( 2015;), ‘ The concept of media freedom today: New media, new editors and the traditional approach of the law. ’, Journal of Media Law, 7:1, pp. 36–64, https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2015.1055143. Accessed 9 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Kramer, A. D. I.,, Guillory, J. E., and Hancock, J. T.. ( 2014;), ‘ Emotional contagion through social networks. ’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111:24, pp. 8788–90, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320040111. Accessed 9 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kuklis, L., and Barata, J.. ( 2019;), ‘ AVMSD and video-sharing platforms regulation: Toward a user-oriented solution?. ’, LSE Blog, 28 May, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2019/05/28/avmsd-and-video-sharing-platforms-regulation-toward-a-user-oriented-solution/. Accessed 1 May 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Leerssen, P.. ( 2020;), ‘ The soap box as a black box: Regulating transparency in social media recommender systems. ’, European Journal of Law and Technology, 11:2, pp. 1–51, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3544009. Accessed 8 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Leerssen, P.,, Ausloos, J.,, Zarouali, B.,, Helberger, N., and de Vreese, C. H.. ( 2019;), ‘ Platform ad archives: Promises and pitfalls. ’, Internet Policy Review, 8:4, pp. 1–21, https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1421. Accessed 1 May 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. MAVISE ( n.d;.), ‘ Database on audiovisual services and their jurisdiction in Europe. ’, https://mavise.obs.coe.int/. Accessed 3 May 2021.
  45. McGregor, L.,, Murray, D., and Ng, V.. ( 2019;), ‘ International human rights law as a framework for algorithmic accountability. ’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 68:2, pp. 309–43, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589319000046. Accessed 8 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Napoli, P.. ( 2019), Social Media and the Public Interest: Media Regulation in the Disinformation Age, New York:: Columbia Publishers;.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Napoli, P. M., and Graf, F.. ( 2021;), ‘ Revisiting the rationales for media regulation: The quid pro quo rationale and the case for aggregate social media user data as public resource. ’, in S. A. Matei,, F. Rebillard, and F. Rochelandet. (eds), Digital and Social Media Regulation: A Comparative Perspective of the US and Europe, Cham:: Springer;, pp. 45–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Nünning, V.. ( 2016;), ‘ AVMD-Richtlinie: Kritik der Bundesländer am EU-Entwurf. ’, 19 July, https://www.medienkorrespondenz.de/politik/artikel/avmd-richtlinie-kritik-der-bundeslaender-amnbspeu-entwurf.html. Accessed 1 May 2021.
  49. OECD ( 2012;), ‘ Recommendation of the council on regulatory policy and government. ’, 22 March, https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/2012-recommendation.htm. Accessed 1 May 2021.
  50. Open Government Partnership ( 2022;), ‘ Mission and strategy. ’, 13 January, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/mission-and-strategy/. Accessed 13 January 2022.
  51. Pasquale, F.. ( 2015), The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms that Control Money and Information, Cambridge, MA and London:: Harvard University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Puppis, M.. ( 2010), Einführung in die Medienpolitik, , 2 Auflage., Konstanz:: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH;.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Puschmann, C.. ( 2019;), ‘ An end to the wild west of social media research: A response to Axel Bruns, Information. ’, Communication & Society, 22:11, pp. 1582–89, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1646300. Accessed 10 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Rauchfleisch, A., and Kaiser, J.. ( 2020;), ‘ The German far-right on YouTube: An analysis of user overlap and user comments. ’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64:3, pp. 373–96, https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1799690. Accessed 12 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Rieder, B., and Hofmann, J.. ( 2020;), ‘ Towards platform observability. ’, Internet Policy Review, 9:4, pp. 1–28, https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1535. Accessed 10 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Rozgonyi, K.. ( 2020;), ‘ Disinformation online: Potential legal and regulatory ramifications to the right to free elections: Policy position paper. ’, in F. Loizides,, M. Winckler,, U. Chatterjee,, J. Abdelnour-Nocera, and A. Parmaxi. (eds), Human Computer Interaction and Emerging Technologies, Cardiff:: Cardiff University Press;, pp. 57–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Sauerwein, F.. ( 2011;), ‘ Regulatory choice for alternative modes of regulation: How context matters. ’, Law & Policy, 33:3, pp. 334–66, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.2011.00341.x. Accessed 10 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Schaake, M.. ( 2020;), ‘ Democracy first: The need for a transatlantic agenda to govern technology. ’, Freeman Spogli Institute, https://fsi-live.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/cpc-democracy_first_ms_v3.pdf/. Accessed 28 October 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Scherr, S.,, Haim, M., and Arendt, F.. ( 2019;), ‘ Equal access to online information? Google’s suicide-prevention disparities may amplify a global digital divide. ’, New Media & Society, 21:3, pp. 562–82, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818801010. Accessed 12 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Stark, B.,, Stegmann, D.,, Magin, M., and Jürgens, P.. ( 2020;), ‘ Are algorithms a threat to democracy? The rise of intermediaries: A challenge for public discourse. ’, Algorithm Watch, 26 May, https://algorithmwatch.org/de/governing-platforms/. Accessed 3 May 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Stigler Center ( 2019;), ‘ Digital platforms. ’, Chicago Booth, 16 September, https://www.chicagobooth.edu/research/stigler/news-and-media/committee-on-digital-platforms-final-report. Accessed 1 May 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Swire, P. P.. ( 1997;), ‘ Markets, self-regulation, and government enforcement in the protection of personal information. ’, Privacy and Self-Regulation in the Information Age by the US Department of Commerce, Rochester, NY:: Social Science Research Network;, pp. 3–19, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.11472. Accessed 12 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Timberg, C.. ( 2021;), ‘ Facebook made big mistake in data it provided to researchers, undermining academic work. ’, Washington Post, 10 September, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/10/facebook-error-data-social-scientists/. Accessed 28 October 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Truyens, M., and Van Eecke, P.. ( 2014;), ‘ Legal aspects of text mining. ’, Computer Law & Security Review, 30:2, pp. 153–70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2014.01.009. Accessed 10 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. UK Competition and Markets Authority ( 2019;), ‘ Online platforms and digital advertising market study. ’, 3 July, https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/online-platforms-and-digital-advertising-market-study. Accessed 1 May 2021.
  66. van Cuilenburg, J., and McQuail, D.. ( 2003;), ‘ Media policy paradigm shifts: Towards a new communications policy paradigm. ’, European Journal of Communication, 18:2, pp. 181–207, https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323103018002002. Accessed 12 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. van Dijck, J.. ( 2020;), ‘ Seeing the forest for the trees: Visualizing platformization and its governance. ’, New Media & Society, 23:9, pp. 2801–19, https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461444820940293. Accessed 12 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. van Dijck, J.,, de Winkel, T., and Schäfer, M. T.. ( 2021;), ‘ Deplatformization and the governance of the platform ecosystem. ’, New Media & Society, article first, https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211045662. Accessed 12 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. van Drunen, M. Z.. ( 2020;), ‘ The post-editorial control era: How EU media law matches platforms’ organisational control with cooperative responsibility. ’, Journal of Media Law, 12:2, pp. 166–90, https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2020.1796067. Accessed 12 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. von Nordheim, G.,, Fuchsloch, S.,, Schwartz, S., and Franzke, A.. ( 2019;), ‘ Data access and the need for a new watchdog model. ’, Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC, 24–28 May.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Weiss-Blatt, N.. ( 2021), The Techlash and Tech Crisis Communication, Bingley:: Emerald;, https://doi.org/10.1108/9781800430853. Accessed 12 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Fuchsloch, Stefanie, and von Nordheim, Gerret. ( 2023;), ‘ The Watchdogs Network: A model for continuous monitoring of AVMSD rules. ’, Journal of Digital Media & Policy, 14:1, pp. 7–28, 10.1386/jdmp_00085_1
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/jdmp_00085_1
Loading
The Watchdogs Network: A model for continuous monitoring of AVMSD rules
Journal of Digital Media & Policy 14, 7 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1386/jdmp_00085_1
/content/journals/10.1386/jdmp_00085_1
/content/journals/10.1386/jdmp_00085_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): AVMSD; data access; monitoring; platform governance; VSP; watchdogs

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error