Between the cracks: Blind spots in regulating media concentration and platform dependence in the EU

Theresa Josephine Seipp, University of Amsterdam
Natali Helberger, University of Amsterdam
Claes de Vreese, University of Amsterdam
Jef Ausloos, University of Amsterdam
PUBLISHED ON: 14 Nov 2024 DOI: 10.14763/2024.4.1813

The DSA, DMA, and EMFA aim to regulate platform power over digital services and markets while establishing rules to protect media freedom, pluralism, and editorial independence, notably through efforts to address media concentration; however, they seem to overlook some of the underlying causes driving these concentration threats.

AI-generated journalism: Do the transparency provisions in the AI Act give news readers what they hope for?

Stanislaw Piasecki, University of Amsterdam
Sophie Morosoli, University of Amsterdam
Natali Helberger, University of Amsterdam
Laurens Naudts, University of Amsterdam
PUBLISHED ON: 23 Oct 2024 DOI: 10.14763/2024.4.1810

This article evaluates how to reconcile AI Act’s Art. 50 transparency provisions applicable to AI-generated text with news readers’ perceptions of manipulation and empowerment.

In this study, we developed a consumer survey to investigate the extent to which legislation can (and should) keep up with existing and changing social and ethical norms regarding the use of data for personalising online prices.

Accountability protocols? On-chain dynamics in blockchain governance

Kelsie Nabben, European University Institute
Primavera De Filippi, National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS)
PUBLISHED ON: 8 Oct 2024 DOI: 10.14763/2024.4.1807

This paper focuses on the dynamics of accountability in blockchain governance. Drawing on a case study of the Lido protocol on Ethereum, it explores the rule of code, on-chain accountability, accountability trade-offs, and the complexities of determining when accountability can be better instantiated via on-chain or off-chain mechanisms.

Balancing public interest, fundamental rights, and innovation: The EU’s governance model for non-high-risk AI systems

Michael Gille, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences
Marina Tropmann-Frick, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences
Thorben Schomacker, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences
PUBLISHED ON: 30 Sep 2024 DOI: 10.14763/2024.3.1797

The article takes an in-depth look at the AI Act’s governance approach to non-high-risk AI systems and provides a multi-perspective analysis of the challenges that the EU’s regulation of AI brings about.

Balancing efficiency and public interest: The impact of AI automation on social benefit provision in Brazil

Maria Alejandra Nicolás, Federal University of Latin American Integration
Rafael Cardoso Sampaio, Federal University of Paraná
PUBLISHED ON: 30 Sep 2024 DOI: 10.14763/2024.3.1799

The Brazilian Social Security Management Office's AI system reduces the waiting list but increases automatic refusals, harming beneficiaries and increasing inequality in the delivery of public services to the poorest and elderly people.

This paper uncovers the risks inherent in facial recognition within law enforcement, exploring multidimensional aspects affecting data protection vs public security within the regulatory frameworks of the General Data Protection Regulation and the Artificial Intelligence Act.

Contesting the public interest in AI governance

Tegan Cohen, Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
Nicolas P. Suzor, Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
PUBLISHED ON: 30 Sep 2024 DOI: 10.14763/2024.3.1794

This article explores some conditions and possibilities for public contestability in AI governance; a critical attribute of governance arrangements designed to align AI deployment with the public interest.

Public value in the making of automated and datafied welfare futures

Doris Allhutter, Austrian Academy of Sciences
Anila Alushi, University of Leipzig
Rafaela Cavalcanti de Alcântara, Austrian Academy of Sciences
Maris Männiste, Södertörn University
Christian Pentzold, University of Leipzig
Sebastian Sosnowski, Polish Academy of Sciences
PUBLISHED ON: 30 Sep 2024 DOI: 10.14763/2024.3.1803

This article considers the public value of automated and datafied welfare and uses the capability approach, buen vivir, and data justice to explore the relation between the procedural and normative components of emerging infrastructures of welfare.