Issue

Vol. 2 No. 1 (2022)

Artificial Intelligence

Public Sphere Distortion in the Age of Internet Giants

Regulatory Pathways toward the Implications of Automated Online Content Filtering
https://doi.org/10.54873/jolets.v2i1.70
Ibrahim Sabra
Assistant Lecturer, Faculty of Law, British University in Egypt
Mostafa ElKadi
Junior Collaborator, International Institute of International Humanitarian Law, Sanremo, Italy

Corresponding Author(s) : Ibrahim Sabra

ibrahim.sabra@bue.edu.eg

Journal of Law and Emerging Technologies, Vol. 2 No. 1 (2022)

Abstract

In an era of information profusion, Internet giants play a key role in determining the content that individuals consume online. Social media platforms, for instance, claim that their automated filters can provide users with a personalised online experience and end internet chaos. However, these platforms today use automated filtering extensively to curate content disseminated online in an opaque way to their users. Some believe that the negative impact of automated filtering is overstated since it empowers individuals to enjoy a tailored online experience based on their preferences; however, others argue that it has severe repercussions. This paper first sheds light on the Internet’s role in reshaping the future of the media sector and its role as a watchdog. Secondly, it discusses the so-called “Automated Online Content Filtering” and a number of correlated concepts. It then analyses using a socio-legal approach the related controversy and the consequential implications of employing automated filtering on public sphere. Finally, it comparatively explains the adopted regulatory measures and recommended steps to minimise the prejudice caused by these filters. The paper concludes that due to profit-based engagement optimisation which drives social media platforms to de-prioritise content likely to be less engaging, automated filtering may amplify biases and extremism, induce the proliferation of false news and inflammatory content, and exacerbate the manipulation of the electorate, algorithmic bias, and censorship. Thus, the international community must take concrete regulatory measures to mitigate such ramifications and sway Internet giants to adopt standards that would lead to a healthier digital public sphere.

Keywords

Internet Giants Content Filtering Automated Decision Making Fake News Algorithmic Bias Filter Bubbles Echo Chambers Digital Rights Freedom of Information Public Sphere عمالقة الإنترنت تصفية المحتوى الاتخاذ الآلي للقرار الأخبار الكاذبة التحيز الخوارزمي فقاعات التصفية غرف الصدى الحقوق الرقمية حرية المعلومات المجال العام
Sabra, I., & ElKadi, M. (2022). Public Sphere Distortion in the Age of Internet Giants: Regulatory Pathways toward the Implications of Automated Online Content Filtering. Journal of Law and Emerging Technologies, 2(1), 51–86. https://doi.org/10.54873/jolets.v2i1.70
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. —, “A Multi-Dimensional Approach to Disinformation” (The independent High level Group on fake news and online disinformation, European Commission 2018) <https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6ef4df8b-4cea-11e8-be1d-01aa75ed71a1>
  2. —, “Centre Against Terrorism and Hybrid Threats” (Ministry of the Interior) <https://www.mvcr.cz/cthh/clanek/centre-against-terrorism-and-hybrid-threats.aspx>
  3. —, “Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online” (European Commission 2016) <https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/code_of_conduct_on_countering_illegal_hate_speech_online_en.pdf>
  4. —, “Code of Practice on Disinformation” (Digital Single Market - European Commission, June 17, 2019) <https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/code-practice-disinformation>
  5. —, “COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, Tackling Online Disinformation: a European Approach” (European Commission 2018) <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0236&from=EN>
  6. —, “Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online – EU Code of Conduct Ensures Swift Response” (European Commission, February 4, 2019) <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_805>
  7. —, “Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression” (IACHR 2000) <https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/mandate/Basics/declaration-principles-freedom-expression.pdf>
  8. —, “Germany Approves Plans to Fine Social Media Firms up to €50m” (The Guardian, June 30, 2017) <https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/30/germany-approves-plans-to-fine-social-media-firms-up-to-50m>
  9. —, “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” (United Nations 16 June 2011) <https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf>
  10. —, How Filter Bubbles Distort Reality: Everything You Need to Know” (Farnam Street, November 14, 2019) <https://fs.blog/2017/07/filter-bubbles/>
  11. —, “How Media Can Be an Instrument of Peace in Conflict-Prone Settings” (UNDP Oslo Governance Centre 2017) <https://www.undp.org/content/dam/norway/undp-ogc/documents/UNDPOGC_Media_conflict roundtable background paper.pdf>
  12. —, “Individual Communications” (OHCHR) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/ccpr/individual-communications>
  13. —, “Initiatives to Counter Fake News in Selected Countries” (The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Directorate 2019) <https://www.loc.gov/law/help/fake-news/counter-fake-news.pdf>
  14. —, “Internet and Electoral Campaigns: Study on the Use of Internet in Electoral Campaigns” (MSI-MED Council of Europe 2017) <https://rm.coe.int/use-of-internet-in-electoral-campaigns-/16807c0e24>
  15. —, “Kenya: Court of Appeal’s ruling strikes further blow to free expression and privacy” (Article 19, August 14, 2020) <https://www.article19.org/resources/kenya-court-of-appeals-ruling/#:~:text=On%207%20August%202020%2C%20a,2018%20on%2020%20February%202020.>
  16. —, “Measuring Media Plurality” (Ofcom 2012) <https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0031/57694/measuring-media-plurality.pdf>
  17. —, “OAS: JOINT DECLARATION ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE INTERNET” (Oas.org, 2011) <http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=849&lID=1>
  18. —, “Online Harms White Paper” (HR Government 2019) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/793360/Online_Harms_White_Paper.pdf>
  19. —, “Petition 206 of 2018” (Kenya Law 2018) <http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/159286>
  20. —, “Tackling Online Disinformation” (Digital Single Market - European Commission, September 13, 2019) <https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/tackling-online-disinformation>
  21. —, “Tackling the Information Crisis: A Policy Framework for Media System Resilience” (LSE Truth, Trust & Technology Commission 2018) <http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/assets/documents/research/T3-Report-Tackling-the-Information-Crisis.pdf>
  22. —, “The Inter-American Legal Framework Regarding the Right to Freedom of Expression” (Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression Inter American Commission on Human Rights, OAS 2009) <http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/docs/publications/INTER-AMERICAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION FINAL PORTADA.pdf>
  23. —, “Unboxing artificial intelligence: 10 steps to protect human rights” (Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights 2019)
  24. —, “'Who Shared It?' How Americans Decide What News to Trust on Social Media” (American Press Institute, May 24, 2017) <https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/trust-social-media/>
  25. Adamic LA and Glance N, “The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election” [2005] Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery - LinkKDD
  26. An J, Quercia D and Crowcroft J, “Partisan Sharing” [2014] Proceedings of the second edition of the ACM conference on Online social networks - COSN
  27. Barberá P and others, “Tweeting From Left to Right” (2015) 26 Psychological Science DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594620
  28. Barberá P, “Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization”, (forthcoming. Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, edited by Nate Persily and Joshua Tucker. Cambridge University Press). 3 > http://pablobarbera.com/static/echo-chambers.pdf>
  29. BÁRD P and BAYER J, “A Comparative Analysis of Media Freedom and Pluralism in the EU Member States” (Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs 2016) <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571376/IPOL_STU(2016)571376_EN.pdf>
  30. Behr I and others, “Radicalisation in the Digital Era: The Use of the Internet in 15 Cases of Terrorism and Extremism” (RAND 2013) <https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR400/RR453/RAND_RR453.pdf>
  31. Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV Case C 360/10 (CJEU 16 February 2012)
  32. Benkler Y, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (Yale University Press 2006)
  33. Bennett WL and Iyengar S, “A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication” (2008) 58 Journal of Communication DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x
  34. Berger JM, “Zero Degrees of Al Qaeda” (Foreign Policy August 14, 2013) <https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/14/zero-degrees-of-al-qaeda/>
  35. Bessi A and others, “Science vs Conspiracy: Collective Narratives in the Age of Misinformation” (2015) 10 Plos One DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118093
  36. Bessi A and others, “Trend of Narratives in the Age of Misinformation” (2015) 10 Plos One DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134641
  37. Zollo F and others, “Emotional Dynamics in the Age of Misinformation” (2015) 10 Plos One DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138740
  38. Bishara H, “Facebook Settles 8-Year Case With Teacher Who Posted Courbet’s “Origin Of The World” (Hyperallergic, 2019) <https://hyperallergic.com/512428/facebook-settles-8-year-case-with-teacher-who-posted-courbets-origin-of-the-world/>
  39. Blank G and Lutz C, “Representativeness of Social Media in Great Britain: Investigating Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Pinterest, Google, and Instagram” (2017) 61 American Behavioral Scientist DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764217717559
  40. Cardenal AS and others, “Digital Technologies and Selective Exposure: How Choice and Filter Bubbles Shape News Media Exposure” (2019) 24 The International Journal of Press/Politics DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161219862988
  41. COUNCIL OF EUROPE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS DECLARATION on freedom of communication on the Internet (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 28 May 2003 at the 840th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
  42. Dalban v. Romania App no 28114/95 (ECtHR, 28 Sept 1999)
  43. David Kaye, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (6 April 2018) A/HRC/38/35
  44. Delfi AS v Estonia [GC] App no 40287/98 (ECtHR 16 June 2015)
  45. Delfi AS v. Estonia GC App No 64569/09 (ECtHR 10 October 2013)
  46. Difranzo D and Gloria-Garcia K, “Filter Bubbles and Fake News” (2017) 23 XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3055153
  47. Directive 2000/31/EC on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market ('Directive on electronic commerce') [2000] OJ L 178
  48. Donahoe E and Metzger M, “Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights” (2019) 30 Journal of Democracy DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2019.0029
  49. Donell Holloway, “Explainer: what is surveillance capitalism and how does it shape our economy?” (The Conversation 2019) <https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-surveillance-capitalism-and-how-does-it-shape-our-economy-119158>
  50. Dubois E and Blank G, “The Echo Chamber Is Overstated: the Moderating Effect of Political Interest and Diverse Media” (2018) 21 Information, Communication & Society DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656
  51. Dutton W H and others, “Search and Politics: The Uses and Impacts of Search in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United States” (2017) Quello Center Working Paper No. 5-1-17 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2960697
  52. Dylko I and others, “Impact of Customizability Technology on Political Polarization” (2017) 15 Journal of Information Technology & Politics DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2017.1354243
  53. Dylko I and others, “The Dark Side of Technology: An Experimental Investigation of the Influence of Customizability Technology on Online Political Selective Exposure” (2017) 73 Computers in Human Behavior DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.031
  54. Eppler MJ and Mengis J, “The Concept of Information Overload: A Review of Literature from Organization Science, Accounting, Marketing, MIS, and Related Disciplines” (2004) 20 The Information Society DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240490507974
  55. Epstein R and Robertson RE, “The Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) and Its Possible Impact on the Outcomes of Elections” (2015) 112 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1419828112
  56. European Economic and Social Committee (“EESC”) 526th EESC plenary session of 31 May and 1 June 2017 “Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Artificial intelligence — The consequences of artificial intelligence on the (digital) single market, production, consumption, employment and society’’ 2017/C 288/01 31 August 2017
  57. Finkelstein HR, “Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation” ( Commonwealth of Australia 2012) <http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1205_finkelstein.pdf>
  58. Flaxman S, Goel S and Rao JM, “Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption” (2016) 80 Public Opinion Quarterly DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006
  59. Francisco Martorell v. Chile Case 11.230 Report No. 11/96 Inter-Am.C.H.R.,OEA/Ser.L/V/II.95 Doc. 7 rev. at 234 (IACHR 1997)
  60. Funke D and Flamini D, “A Guide to Anti-Misinformation Actions around the World” (Poynter) <https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/ anti-misinformation-actions/>
  61. Furedi F, Culture of Fear Revisited (2nd edn, Continuum International Publishing 2006)
  62. Garrett RK, “Echo Chambers Online?: Politically Motivated Selective Exposure among Internet News Users” (2009) 14 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x
  63. Garrett RK, “The ‘Echo Chamber’ Distraction: Disinformation Campaigns Are the Problem, Not Audience Fragmentation” (2017) 6 Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.011
  64. Garrett RK, Weeks BE and Neo RL, “Driving a Wedge Between Evidence and Beliefs: How Online Ideological News Exposure Promotes Political Misperceptions” (2016) 21 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12164
  65. Goodman E, “How Has Media Policy Responded to Fake News?” (Media@LSE, February 7, 2017) <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2017/02/07/how-has-media-policy-responded-to-fake-news/>
  66. Hannak A and others, “Measuring Personalization of Web Search” [2013] Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web - WWW 13
  67. Harambam J, Bountouridis D, Makhortykh M and Van Hoboken J, “Designing for the better by taking users into account: a qualitative evaluation of user control mechanisms in (news) recommender systems”, In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys ‘19) (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA, 2019) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3298689.3347014
  68. Haraszti M, “Media Pluralism and Human Rights, Issue Discussion Paper” (Commission for Human Rights, Council of Europe 2011) <https://rm.coe.int/16806da515>
  69. Harker M, “Political Advertising Revisited: Digital Campaigning and Protecting Democratic Discourse” [2019] Legal Studies
  70. Harriss L and Raymer K, “Online Information and Fake News” (POST, UK Parliament, July 12, 2017) <https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/POST-PN-0559>
  71. Hern A, “Facebook and Twitter Are Being Used to Manipulate Public Opinion – Report” (The Guardian, June 19, 2017) <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/19/social-media-proganda-manipulating-public-opinion-bots-accounts-facebook-twitter>
  72. Home Office news team, “Home Office in the Media Blog: Monday 18 February” (GOV.UK blogs, February 18, 2019) <https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2019/02/18/home-office-in-the-media-blog-monday-18-february/>
  73. Howell L, “Digital Wildfires in a Hyperconnected World” (WEF Global Risks Report 2013) <http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalRisks_Report_2013.pdf>
  74. Jerusalem v. Austria App no 26958/95 (ECtHR, 27 Feb 2001)
  75. Joanna Kavenna, “Shoshana Zuboff: Surveillance capitalism is an assault on human autonomy” (The Guardian 2019) <https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/oct/04/shoshana-zuboff-surveillance-capitalism-assault-human-automomy-digital-privacy>
  76. Jourová V, “How the Code of Conduct Helped Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online” (DG JUST, European Commission 2019) <https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/hatespeech_infographic3_web.pdf>
  77. Kakah M, “Court Suspends Portions of Cybercrime Law” (Daily Nation, June 28, 2020) <https://www.nation.co.ke/news/Court-suspends-portions-of-cybercrime-law/1056-4585936-thh4s5/index.html>
  78. Kaye D, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (29 August 2018) A/73/348
  79. Kemp S, “DIGITAL 2022: GLOBAL OVERVIEW REPORT” (DATAREPORTAL, January 26, 2022) <https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-global-overview-report>
  80. Knobloch-Westerwick S, Choice and Preference in Media Use: Advances in Selective Exposure Theory and Research (1st edn, Routledge 2014) DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771359
  81. Lawrence E, Sides J and Farrell H, “Self-Segregation or Deliberation? Blog Readership, Participation, and Polarization in American Politics” (2010) 8 Perspectives on Politics DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592709992714
  82. Leetaru K, “The Web Brought Us Limitless Information But Not The Tools To Manage It” (Forbes, May 26, 2019) <https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/05/25/the-web-brought-us-limitless-information-but-not-the-tools-to-manage-it/>
  83. Lessig L, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (Penguin 2008) DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781849662505
  84. Liebes T, Curran J and Katz E, “Public Sphere or Public Sphericules?“ in Media, Ritual and Identity (Routledge 1998)
  85. Ligabo A, “PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS, CIVIL, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT” (UNHRC 2008) <https://undocs.org/A/HRC/7/14>
  86. Lima L and others, “Inside the Right-Leaning Echo Chambers: Characterizing Gab, an Unmoderated Social System” [2018] 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ASONAM.2018.8508809
  87. Llansó E J “No amount of “AI” in content moderation will solve filtering’s prior restraint problem” Big Data & Society January–June (2020) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720920686
  88. Maheshwari S, “How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study” (The New York Times, November 20, 2016) <https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/media/how-fake-news-spreads.html>
  89. Mara GM, The Civic Conversations of Thucydides and Plato: Classical Political Philosophy and the Limits of Democracy (SUNY Press 2008)
  90. Marino C B “Freedom of Expression and the Internet” Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression IACHR (2013) CIDH/RELE/INF. 11/13
  91. McKay P, “Culture of The Future: Adapting Copyright Law to Accommodate Fan-Made Derivative Works in The Twenty-First Century” (2011) 24 Regent University Law Review
  92. Messing S and Westwood SJ, “Selective Exposure in the Age of Social Media” (2012) 41 Communication Research DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466406
  93. Mitchell AE, Gottfried JE and Matsa KE, “Facebook Top Source for Political News Among Millennials” (Pew Research Center's Journalism Project, June 1, 2015) <https://www.journalism.org/2015/06/01/facebook-top-source-for-political-news-among-millennials/>
  94. Mocanu D and others, “Collective Attention in the Age of (Mis)Information” (2015) 51 Computers in Human Behavior DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.024
  95. Mouvement Raëlien Suisse v. Switzerland, App. No 16354/06 (ECtHR 13 July 2012)
  96. Murgia M, “Algorithms Drive Online Discrimination, Academic Warns” (Financial Times, December 12, 2019) <https://www.ft.com/content/bc959e8c-1b67-11ea-97df-cc63de1d73f4?fbclid=IwAR0S3PZGe0EyaHTY-uWYVldJr7ivJdniQvwflxfNLywKotUwFd_bWuOmbuM>
  97. Muthukumar v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India & Ors. WP(MD) No. 7855 of 2019 (Madras High Court 24 April 2019)
  98. Myers DG and Lamm H, “The Group Polarization Phenomenon.” (1976) 83 Psychological Bulletin DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.602
  99. Napoli PM, “What If More Speech Is No Longer the Solution? First Amendment Theory Meets Fake News and the Filter Bubble” (2018) 70 Federal Communications Law Journal
  100. Newman N and others, “Digital News Report” (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism 2017) <https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Digital News Report 2017 web_0.pdf>
  101. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Levy, D., & Kleis Nielsen, R. (2017). Reuters Digital News Report 2017. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved from http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/
  102. Nguyen CT, “ECHO CHAMBERS AND EPISTEMIC BUBBLES” [2018] Episteme 1
  103. Nguyen CT, “The Problem of Living inside Echo Chambers” (The Conversation, October 31, 2019) <https://theconversation.com/the-problem-of-living-inside-echo-chambers-110486>
  104. O’Callaghan D and others, “Down the (White) Rabbit Hole: The Extreme Right and Online Recommender Systems” (2014) 33 Social Science Computer Review DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314555329
  105. OAS, “JOINT DECLARATION ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE INTERNET” (Oas.org, 2011) <http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=849&lID=1>
  106. OAS, “TENTH ANNIVERSARY JOINT DECLARATION: TEN KEY CHALLENGES TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN THE NEXT DECADE” (Oas.org, 2010) <http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=784&lID=1>
  107. OAS, “TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE JOINT DECLARATION: CHALLENGES TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN THE NEXT DECADE” (Oas.org, 2019) <http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=1146&lID=1>
  108. Obendorf H and others, “Web Page Revisitation Revisited” [2007] Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
  109. Oremus W, “Twitter Has Finally Made It Easy to Set Your Timeline to Reverse-Chronological” (Slate, 2018) <https://slate.com/technology/2018/12/twitterreverse-chronological-timeline-setting.html>
  110. Pariser E, The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You (Penguin Books 2012) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3139/9783446431164
  111. Pascu C and others, “Social Computing: Implications for the EU Innovation Landscape” (2008) 10 Foresight DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680810856017
  112. Price ME, Verhulst S and Morgan L, Routledge Handbook of Media Law (Routledge 2015)
  113. Prior M, Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections (Cambridge University Press 2007) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139878425
  114. Putnam RD, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Simon & Schuster 2000) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.361990
  115. Recommendation CM/Rec(2020)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the human rights impacts of algorithmic systems Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 April 2020 at the 1373rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
  116. Reed A and others, “Radical Filter Bubbles Social Media Personalisation Algorithms and Extremist Content” (Global Research Network on Terrorism and Technology 2019) <https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/20190726_grntt_paper_08_0.pdf>
  117. Rekvényi v. Hungary App no 25390/94 (ECHR, 20 May 1999)
  118. Robinson L, “Fake News Persists in Argentina as Election Draws Near” (Buenos Aires Times, September 28, 2019) <https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/argentina/fake-news-persists-in-argentina-as-election-draws-near.phtml>
  119. Rolph D and others, Media Law: Cases, Material and Commentary (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2015)
  120. Saez-Trumper D, Castillo C and Lalmas M, “Social Media News Communities” [2013] Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Conference on information & knowledge management - CIKM
  121. Sartor G and Loreggia A “The impact of algorithms for online content filtering or moderation: Upload Filters” (2020) A study requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs PE 657.101
  122. Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) Case C-70/10 (CJEU 24 November 2011)
  123. Schultz J, Reviving the Fourth Estate: Democracy, Accountability and the Media (Cambridge University Press 1998) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597138
  124. Silverman C, “This Analysis Shows How Viral Fake Election News Stories Outperformed Real News On Facebook” (BuzzFeed News, November 16, 2016) <https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook>
  125. Sîrbu A and others, “Algorithmic Bias Amplifies Opinion Fragmentation and Polarization: A Bounded Confidence Model” (2019) 14 Plos One DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213246
  126. Steve Clark v. Grenada Case 10.325 Report No. 2/96 Inter-Am.C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.91 Doc. 7 at 113 (IACHR 1996)
  127. Stroud NJ, “Polarization and Partisan Selective Exposure” (2010) 60 Journal of Communication DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x
  128. Sunstein CR “Algorithms, Correcting Biases” (2018) Forthcoming, Social Research, SSRN < https://ssrn.com/abstract=3300171>
  129. Sunstein CR, #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media (Princeton University Press 2017) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400884711
  130. Sunstein CR, Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton University Press 2007)
  131. Sunstein CR, Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton University Press 2009)
  132. UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), General comment no. 31 [80], The nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, 26 May 2004, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13
  133. Vicario MD and others, “The Spreading of Misinformation Online” (2016) 113 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517441113
  134. Vīķe‐Freiberga V and others, “A Free and Pluralistic Media to Sustain European Democracy” (The Report of the High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism 2013) <https://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/doc/pluralism/hlg/hlg_final_report.pdf>
  135. Waters G and Postings R, “Spiders of the Caliphate: Mapping the Islamic State’s Global Support Network on Facebook” (Counter Extremism Project 2018) <https://www.counterextremism.com/sites/default/files/Spiders of the Caliphate (May 2018).pdf>
  136. Webster JG, Marketplace of Attention: How Audiences Take Shape in a Digital Age (MIT Press 2016)
  137. Weeks BE, Ksiazek TB and Holbert RL, “Partisan Enclaves or Shared Media Experiences? A Network Approach to Understanding Citizens’ Political News Environments” (2016) 60 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2016.1164170
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
Share |
Download this PDF file
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 990

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.