Read on Twitter
Assorted observations on the #DSA. These track my own interests, so if you want an overview, look elsewhere. (If I see one, I’ll add it to the thread though.) 1/ https://twitter.com/daphnehk/status/1338885153142128642
I’d like to see a chart showing which obligations apply to which platforms, particularly at the smaller end of the range. It looks to me like some very burdensome obligations are going to fall on some very small entities. 2/
I know there are some Commission slides showing the obligations at the giant (VLOP!) end of the range. But that small end needs some serious attention IMO. 3/
One of the toughest Qs: How can the law encourage platforms to voluntarily moderate, when plaintiffs will want to use those very moderation efforts against them in litigation to say they have too much knowledge/control to be immunized under Art 5 (fka Art 14)? 4/
I’m not sure this problem is actually solvable. I wrote about it in detail, with a European focus, here: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2020/05/systemic-duties-care-and-intermediary-liability 5/
Part of the answer is that the “due diligence” obligations in the DSA are mostly things like transparency and process improvements to notice and takedown – not things that should affect immunity under The Immunity Formerly Known as Article 14. Good choice there, drafters! 6/
But when it comes right down to it, IMO the DSA chooses to help plaintiffs in intermediary liability cases, at the cost of discouraging content moderation. It does that with one key word in this passage: “solely” 7/
So plaintiffs can still use platforms' voluntary efforts to say "see, they knew/should have known!" or "this specific monitoring injunction is OK and not burdensome, because they already built filters for this other purpose," etc. as long as those are not the SOLE argument. 8/
There are like 12 more tweets in this thread, here: https://twitter.com/daphnehk/status/1338890007545724933
I seriously don't understand Twitter threading. (It's embarrassing.) When I look at #9 in this thread, it appears to come right after #8. But when I look at the thread starting with #1, it ends at #8.
I seriously don't understand Twitter threading. (It's embarrassing.) When I look at #9 in this thread, it appears to come right after #8. But when I look at the thread starting with #1, it ends at #8.
