C (2:59)

Thank you so much for joining, guys. The last time we talked DSA at this length was at the conference two years ago. As far as I remember, the inaugural DSA conference brought together nearly 40 paper presentations over two days. So I'm curious to know how has DSA research evolved since and more specifically when you were looking at conference submissions, where is research heavily concentrated and what are critical areas that remain under researched?

D (3:29)

So I wasn't actually at the first conference myself, but my understanding is in terms of like the fields expanding, that we've got something like double the number of submissions. So the field has definitely grown in a couple of years. There's a lot of interest in the DSA and a lot of academics who are coming up for whom this is a subject that wasn't available to them before and now it's sort of a blue ocean. Definitely there was a lot of interest in the DSA's risk based approach. I'd say the majority of the submissions we got were looking at this. It is a very broad topic, very multifaceted. Also looking at specific areas like whether it's, you know, the potential for election influence or manipulation, also systemic risk to minors. And then we had also a range of other subjects like out of court dispute settlement. There was quite a lot of interest, deceptive design, as well as how the DSA interacts with other regulations in areas like AI, digital markets. So it's really quite broad in terms of the types of submissions that we, that we got. And in the end we accepted 100 papers. So we were able to really grow the conference over the two days and the number of papers we were able to showcase.

A (4:46)

Yeah, and one thing I think is really exciting two years down the line. One thing that's really different about the research is that we have decisions, we have events, we have legal developments to reflect on. So that was the case for systemic risks where we first basically just had this law itself as we know, rather unspecific, you know, concept of risks and very abstract discussions about what that could mean. And now we have, you know, a wealth, you could say, of all these different, you know, platform reports, commission decisions, etc. Now whether we actually are any closer to having a definition of systemic risks, that's something we can continue to disagree about. And this is true not just for systemic risks, but for basically any aspect of the dsa. So ODS bodies are trusted flaggers. Back then we didn't have any and it wasn't even really clear if anyone was willing or prepared to take on that job. And we've seen that absolutely, yes, there are. We have quite a lot now, more than I would have predicted in any case. And we're seeing private litigation, so there's just a lot more like empirical substance to discuss. And that's really what I'm looking forward to doing.

C (5:51)

Absolutely. As you mentioned, we've seen some investigations underway, but also when I look at my notes from last time's conference, there were a lot of early assumptions about what would be the effect of how slow or fast these investigations would be, as you already pointed out, what those systemic risks would be. There was a lot of conversation about those being vague and not nearly defined in the dsa. And then also the role of risk assessments and audits, whether they will really deliver into something concrete or not. So. So Magda, actually I would come to you because the last podcast we had was right around the first cycle of risk assessments and audits were published and we talked about this question then as well. What do we know about the most prominent systemic risks? And do you think we know enough?

E (6:43)

I wouldn't say we know enough. The concept is still quite vague. I think what we do have are decisions from the Commission, both decisions to open investigations that are and shedding some light on the. On what Commission considers to be understanding of systemic risk that you know is accurate under the dsa. And then we have some decisions that are actually about systemic risk. So the recent decision in TikTok case where the Commission for the first time made this kind of, it is only first decision and we don't know yet whether how the investigation will fully end. But we already have some preliminary opinion about systemic risks in the context of infinite scrolls and TikTok, how it's addictive towards users, especially miners and the vulnerable users. And that's very substantive and that's very broad understanding of how to interpret the concept of risk. And that's quite encouraging, I would say. So, you know, there was, I think last time we talked there was real doubts about whether Commission will be bold and will enforce thoroughly the risk provisions. And I think we found out now that Commission is willing to take on this role as an enforcer that is quite thorough. So that is quite, quite a positive development. Also looking at some decisions to open investigations, we have similar investigation now pending against Meta that also concerns rabbit holes and this kind of addictive design. So, so here we go. We already know that TikTok is first on the line, but we have also Meta that has similar services and in both cases this is this kind of fundamental design that is affecting business model of the platforms. So I'm not sure, but we would have thought before that this is actually going to go this way. Also the pending investigation against X, we see that Commission was willing to address design and functioning of X services in the context of right to dignity, which was for me very surprising because even in the context of research on human rights, Right to dignity is always this kind of vague concept that fills in for kind of value laden assessment or to make a point. It's very vague. It's rarely ever used in this kind of precise manner. But Commission was willing to actually base its opening of one of the proceedings on the right to dignity in the context of X and how X was not consulting enough minority groups, users and civil society. So that is quite a, quite a great, quite a, you know, good path that Commission has taken. So then in that respect I'm quite positive. Although reports remain vague and the first round of reports was, you know, like didn't shed much light on the concepts and similarly second round of reports, but that was in a way to be expected and I think we have to give it a little bit more time.

D (9:54)

Yeah, and I think it's really good points you make, Magda. And just to build on that and to your question, do we know more about systemic risks? I think was the question. And something we definitely know more about is how platforms are managing systemic risks. So whether this gets to the question of how risky is it, what's the extent of it, at least we get some insight through these reports, the systemic risk reports and audit reports and so forth, how they're managing them. And it's interesting if you look at the audits at least, which have like a very procedural kind of approach to this, a lot of the auditors find that when it comes to systemic risk management, platforms by and large don't have a very coherent approach, let's say, to tackling that, you know, they're not necessarily tying their risk mitigations to the risks that they identified in a coherent way. At the same time, like auditors are finding platforms by and large to be compliant as well. So there isn't a good definition of what compliance means in this context. And so auditors are erring sort of on the side of, you know, what's the word? To the side of caution. There we go.

C (10:56)

Yeah, and this actually goes back to what the discussion was like last conference. This is actually what we feared with the audits, the way that it's designed and some of the weakness in it, but also the flexibility in it. And it really leaves a lot of room and gives a lot of power for auditors to decide what's good or not. I also want to touch on national and private enforcement because that's a part of the DSA that I don't think gets touched upon a lot or enough. How is that shaping out and what are some of the pressing challenges?

A (11:29)

Well, I think private enforcement is one of those topics that wasn't really that much on the radar at the last conference, but has become, I think, quite significant. Some people phrases as also at a certain point, maybe not so recently, but, you know, maybe a year ago, people were concerned that the commission wasn't being as proactive in its enforcement. You know, people there was a lot of speculation about, you know, were they caving to US pressure now. And like Magda said, I think recent developments have shown that that isn't necessarily the case. Right. The commission does seem to be taking its task seriously and proactively enforcing the dsa. But you know, a public regulator like that can only do so much, especially on such a big and complex issue as a dsa. And private enforcement in all these various ways can potentially fill some gaps. Right. And whether that's, you know, actually users or other interested parties, you know, enforcing their own rights or whether that's, you know, a CSO or maybe even something like a class action are things that are being discussed. Right. And we have had some very interesting developments in that space, chiefly to my knowledge. Now there have been cases in the Netherlands and in Germany, but I think there's more work to be done and that's something we actually want to do at the DSA Observatory in monitoring that across Europe. So for instance, we've had litigation from Democracy Reporting International vs. ICS regarding their access to data and the right to scrape in any case, whether that's through APIs or through scraping to study that platform. In the Netherlands, we've had Danny Makeic, who's a legal expert representing himself, contesting shadow bans under the dsa. For instance, bits of freedom in a more recent case, which is still ongoing, litigating against Meta regarding recommender system design. So, you know, I could go on, but these are, I think, interesting kind of complements to the public enforcement framework, which I think are very exciting to follow. And one thing I think that may not be like on everyone's radar as much is how say commercial parties might also be engaging with the dsa. Right. Generally, I would say that the whole kind of E commerce aspect of the dsa, how things that tend to be very significant in private practice, like Google Mass reviews, like what is The DSA doing there or other. Is there litigation happening? That's something we don't necessarily have good view on and requires more research. So that's on private enforcement. You know, you also asked about national level enforcement. And for those that don't know, the European Commission is primarily tasked with supervision on systemic risks and the other obligations for the large platforms with more than 45 million users. And the national regulators are regulating the smaller platforms and have like a supplementary secondary competence for the large platforms based in their jurisdiction. So it's less of a central task than the Commission has. But there are all sorts of smaller services that do seem significant, whether it's, it's, you know, it's a discord or it's a hosting infrastructure. You know, there's lots of significant issues there. How that is developing is another area where I think we can and should like learn more as academics. It's very difficult language barriers to get a good sense of what's going on. But what I will note actually very recently is we're how we're seeing national governments kind of take on the platform regulation issue again. I think that's quite a significant development. Right. So you've probably seen Pedro Sanchez's government announcement, you know, in Spain not so recently, where they start seeing developing ideas about restrictions for miners, which have been pioneered in Australia, but being taken over in Spain. Also in France, in Greece and many other countries in Europe are proposing similar things as well as things like, you know, what seems like revised ideas about intermediary liability. So instantly raising questions about how does that interact with the DSA and are they not satisfied with the dsa? Are they trying to reassert passionate competence at the national level? And I'll just mention also, you know, France raiding the offices of X. So we're seeing, I think signals are developments at the national level pushing against the DSA framework. And there's a tension there which I expect in the coming year is going to be like a significant topic of debate.

C (15:44)

Yeah, I want to come to the geopolitical side of it. Of course, this podcast would be incomplete without that. But before that, something that you pointed out, the tension between national versus commission level enforcement would be key. As we've also seen in Poland's case, for instance, the president basically vetoed a bill that was supposed to help with national enforcement of the dsa. And again, what I've been curious about as well is that within the Parliament, in the Council and also within national member states as well, is DSA popular as much as it is on the commission level and as us outsiders looking at it. So are those conversations happening within national states as well?

E (16:25)

I'm just maybe want to say a couple words being Polish. So this Polish case, that was clearly a political decision. So this bill that was implementing DSA was long negotiated between NGOs in Poland, Panopticon specifically with the government. And initially, indeed there were some concern, concerns about the possibility of censorship because actually it was DSA law that not only implemented DSA but some extra provisions and, but eventually the version that was submitted for the signature for the President was well protected against any forms of censorship. It was actually quite a good compromise that was negotiated and then veto was a very political decision. And you have cohabitation in Poland. So it's quite a political topic now, the censorship. But I think what I saw, I just wanted apart from that, what came to my mind was that I recently read it's kind of statistic that there is a lot of support for commission pushing back against big platforms on the national level amongst the citizens. So there was some poll taken in Poland, France, Italy, Spain, indicating that there is a big popular support, high popular support for the commission enforcing dsa. So that I think that's also something governments have to take into account. So, so in general that it seems to me that the tides are shifting in the way that DSA is, you know, like this kind of also a tool that is pushing against certain geopolitical pressures from across the oceans and the people are picking it up and are supporting it.

A (18:11)

Yeah.

C (18:12)

The other thing is with the protection of miners, right. Like with the GROK scandal that we've seen this time, there are a lot of calls for ban on X and platforms that also again is in tension with what DSA offers. So do you guys have thoughts on that? With these calls becoming more and more louder on national, state level, do we, do we see the support for DSA going away in the future?

D (18:37)

I will first just say something kind of boring and procedural because that's like sort of the frame in which I've been focusing on this, looking at all these reports, which is that, you know, the indication we have is that when it comes to, you know, basic, you know, process side of compliance, X hasn't been doing a great job. And part of this is, you know, the fact that they didn't, it seems to be, didn't, you know, do a proper risk assessment prior to unveiling grok. Also, if you look at their first audit report, they were the only company to get a negative opinion, you know, despite how risk averse, you know, the auditors might have been in that instance. So it seems as though, you know, they were failing sort of in the basics of compliance there. So that's the sort of, you know, procedural hook, let's say, that enforcement might look at when it comes to X. But getting to the deeper issue of the actual harm, I think this is a, maybe a more interesting question as well.

A (19:33)

The question being whether there's a demand for a ban of X in Europe. Well, I'm not a social scientist, so I can't speak to, you know, what the average person might think of something like this. I don't think that's something the commission not to speak on their behalf, but my, my guess would be that they wouldn't be at all eager to pursue this. The room for that under the DSA itself is not, you know, broad. It's really the, the, the last possible resource. And there is also fundamental rights to take into account, like the bar for blocking an entire website, especially a large social media platform, in terms of fundamental rights is very high rise. There's also the logic that many regulators would have that actually when you're issuing fines, you failed. Right. Which we can disagree on sometimes actually having timely fines on certain issues can be very strategic. But you know, broadly speaking, I think what the regulator wants is to reach commitments, reach compliance, and this would be actually acknowledging that you can't realize that kind of compliance and in that sense admitting failure. So that's, I think most regulators would view such a radical measure like banning an entire social media platform.

C (20:46)

We'll see, we'll find out.

A (20:47)

Yeah, and maybe it's just a final point. I think that's one way of interpreting these developments a national level.

D (20:52)

Right.

A (20:53)

What we're seeing from the Sanchez government in Spain, et cetera, where there is clearly a lot of dissatisfaction with how this website is working. And I think from what I've seen that the attempts to delegitimize or undermine Europe's regulatory framework, even its sovereignty, you might say that are coming from the US government and from their allies like Elon Musk, are not well received in Europe. And with all that dissatisfaction, these are signals, I think, from the national government that something needs to happen.

C (21:24)

And you've already mentioned us and Elon Musk's allies, which brings me the question of how is all this political pressure affecting the researchers working in this space? That's something I've been thinking about a lot. In the last conference, David Kay had mentioned this concern that there was this fear that the DSA's built in review process could be weaponized by political actors who could frame the law as a failed experiment. And now we've seen this play out in reality, including through the most recent report by The Republican led U.S. house Judiciary Report, which has explicitly called out some of the groups working in this space, whether civil society or researchers. So how is this affecting and also in the context going back to organizing this conference, do you see people voicing that risks and how is this shaping research?

A (22:21)

Well, I think this pressure you're describing from the US is really a tragic development and counterproductive in fact, because I think one of the main things that civil society and research were trying to do in the first edition of the conference, one of the main questions being directed at the commission people there was how are you going to preserve free speech? You know, what safeguards are you going to put in place? And you know, me and others have been arguing that something like a trusted flagger requires accountability as well. Right. And these are the kinds of things that the commission is also saying, you know, the DSA is, is designed to protect free speech. Before you had no protections against the platform. And these are, that's a discourse we had. And in fact the way that now US Congress is coming in with their own version of a free speech criticism which is totally overstated and lacks any kind of nuance or any kind of good faith interpretation that's having the opposite of the intended effect. Now nobody is really interested in criticizing the DSA for fear of lending legitimacy to these totally propagandistic exaggerated narratives. So you get kind of a rally around the flag if they, yes, let's have a conversation about free speech and the dsa. We've been having it for many years, but not in these terms. Let's be realistic about it. That's, I think the effect that it's been having, this criticism. The other risk of course, is that there might even be a chilling effect on researchers. The criticism coming from the US is in such aggressive terms. Things also like the visa bans for civil society are clearly intended to intimidate as well. I will say that the brunt of that is being borne by civil society groups more so than academic researchers. Let's say, whether it's bits of freedom being called out in the Netherlands for attending a session on election safety or whether it's trusted factors in Germany being kind of witch hunted, they are really bearing the brunt of that. I hope that it doesn't extend to academics anytime soon. But I think, you know, David Kay's words continue to be wise today, like we should be prepared for that eventuality.

C (24:20)

Are people more interested in studying the way geopolitics is affecting platform regulation in general? Based on some of the proposals you've received, Are you seeing that interest go up as well?

E (24:34)

Oh, hard to say if it goes up, but we do have two panels that are. One is focused on DSA beyond Europe and one is focused on geopolitical development. So clearly there is some interest. We had enough good papers to form two panels that actually extends USA beyond, you know, just its provision and application within the eu.

D (24:59)

Yeah, we talked about the Brussels effect before and now you talk about the Trump effect.

E (25:04)

Maybe that's true. We have actually presentation on that.

A (25:08)

Yeah. And I think a related strain which is also very much dominant in the US right now is this idea of tech oligarchy is this term which Julie Cohen, a very influential law professor, has been writing about and grappling with this really new kind of political and economic structure which is maybe originating in the US but definitely has its spillovers across the world and in tech regulation as well.

D (25:31)

In Europe, we buried the lead, which is that Patti will be giving a keynote at the conference. So it will get to hear more.

C (25:35)

About this, more on this. So looking ahead, what questions feel more urgent this year than the last time and also what blind spots remain in DSA implementation. So maybe each of you could go.

D (25:49)

I mean, I would say just building on this conversation, it seems that the political environment is the elephant in the room, so to speak, but also being addressed quite explicitly in the conference in terms of what's being maybe under addressed or where. Just seeing all of these submissions that came in, I was a bit surprised to see that there wasn't more research looking at the porn platforms. That could just be sort of a normal or expected thing given like as a subject. If you're an academic starting out, you might not want to like dive headlong into that subject. But nevertheless, like now that we have three very designated, very large online porn platforms, you would think that there's a lot to look at there and also like relatively less looking at marketplaces. Again, it could have something to do with kind of the way that we frame the call for papers that the orientation is really around issues that concern speech, I would say more than other subjects, but definitely there's a lot that is covered by the DSA to talk about beyond that.

E (26:52)

Maybe just building on that, I thought that perhaps what is a blind spot is this research on gender based violence that is one of the category of systemic risks. And well, it's not like it's not research at all. The CDT had a very good report on that in connection to foreign platforms. But I do think that perhaps some kind of cross cutting research looking at non discrimination and fundamental rights and mental developments and this kind of illegal content in the context of new directive coming up in 2007 criminalizing some forms of agenda based violence that are facilitated by technology so. And making them illegal forms of expression around that. So I think there is a lot and it's a big topic that perhaps requires some also multidisciplinary approach and I think that there is a lot to do in this field. So yeah, that's. And we do have some presentations connected to this topic in the conference. But I have a feeling that there is much more to talk about still.

C (27:58)

One thing that I think of when you sharing this is it also because the commission has sort of neglected these systemic risks.

E (28:06)

Right. The commission focused much on minors and there were guidelines and there's so much happening in this space. But with grok, the gender based violence with GROC proceedings during. Gender based violence was expressly mentioned as a form of systemic risk that Commission is going to look at in this context. So maybe, yes, maybe this has to do with how Commission prioritizes its work. But wow. I mean apart from the fact that Commission has certain priorities, I think researchers also. It's simply fascinating to be able to look into platforms and how they are approaching this issue. So we have reports already. So that's some kind of material, empirical material we could look into and see what platforms are doing in that field. So that's. Yeah, I think that would be a great point for any researcher to enter when they think about looking at dsa.

C (29:01)

All right. I think we've covered most things and hopefully the conference discussions will spark more ideas and research in these directions. One thing also to mention is that in the coming weeks right around the conference, Tech Policy Pass is very pleased to partner with the DSA Observatory and we will be publishing a series of articles focusing on some of these large themes under DSA implementation that we've discussed today. So keep an eye out and those of you who will be at the conference, I'll hope to see you there and have a good day and thank you all.

A (29:34)

Thank you.

E (29:34)

Thank you.

B (29:47)

That's it for this episode. I hope you'll send your feedback. You can write to me at justinettechpolicy Press. Thanks to ramsha, thanks to my co founder Brian Jones and thank you for listening.

E (30:05)

Tech policy press.