Entwined Transparency – Connecting Means of Transparency Under the Digital Services Act

Description

The Digital Services Act (DSA) harmonizes rules for content moderation and platform governance in the European Union and provides new transparency mechanisms. Within the DSA, platforms have to fulfill multiple different transparency requirements, with the most rigorous reporting duties targeting Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Very Large Search Engines (VLOSEs) to comply with the DSA. One central mechanism of the DSA is platform transparency reports that provide a birds-eye perspective on the platform’s content moderation quality and processes according to Articles 15, 24, and 42 DSA. These reports include information about content moderation, automated means, moderation reasons, or notices received by public authorities. Another form of transparency platforms must comply with is the Statement of Reason (SOR) as outlined in Articles 17 and 24(5) DSA, which demand information on all content moderation decisions taken on platforms. These include details about moderation choices and actions, the legal or contractual grounds, the actor identifying the content in question, or an explanation about the decision taken. These SORs are publicly available in the Transparency Database.

Transparency reports from previous national laws like the NetzDG or the KoPlG regulating illegal content were heavily critiqued due to their shallow statements, incomplete information, or skewed presentation of the situation on the platform. To study this phenomenon of compliance in DSA transparency reporting, we will look more closely at one specific online platform: Instagram. Based on existing regulatory and media debates, we believe we are likely to find considerable discrepancies in the transparency reporting on Instagram. Therefore, we aim to answer the following overarching question: How can different forms of consistency of means of transparency evaluate compliance within the scope of the DSA for a VLOP?

To answer this question, we will first provide an overview of key literature and existing legal provisions regulating transparency under the DSA. We will then look more closely at the methodology that could be used to evaluate compliance under the DSA, focusing on three different forms of consistency of transparency mechanisms to test plausibility and coherence in reported statements.

Consistency in reporting is a transitional form in the content moderation process and the captured moderation decisions within it. In their work on studying transparency practices in a case study comparison, Ringel et al. illustrate practices of two transparency-embracing organizations for consistency, surveillance, and negotiation. They suggest that consistency aims to fulfill expectations for an audience by showcasing processes disclosed in a standardized way that provides insight into the entity's efforts. The authors also stress the importance of legitimization and the image conveyed to the audience.

This aim of consistency aligns closely with the goal of transparency, described by Flyverbom as a complex mediation effort that discloses visibility to the public. Since the process of content moderation and the transparency efforts required are complex and involve a wide range of stakeholders, using consistency as a guiding principle throughout different reporting practices and responses to different audiences appears to be a good fit. These similarities between consistency and transparency reporting are crucial to establishing our DSA methodology that splits consistency into three levels.

At the first level of consistency, we will examine the internal consistency of Instagram's transparency reports, assessing claims made in those internal reporting artifacts. At the second level, we will analyze the external consistency of reporting by using two means of DSA transparency: Instagram's transparency reports and the SOR data in the Transparency Database. The third level evaluates historical consistency across different reporting periods for Instagram's transparency reports.

Period	20 Jun 2024 → 21 Jun 2024
Event title	LAW &/VS TECHNOLOGY: Trends for the New Decade
Event type	Conference
Location	Leiden, NetherlandsShow on map