Platform Values
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PLATFORM VALUES: CONFLICTING RIGHTS, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND TAX AVOIDANCE EDITED BY LUCA BELLI AND NICOLO ZINGALES CONSOLIDATED AND UNEDITED VERSION OF THE SPECIAL ISSUE OF THE COMPUTER LAW AND SECURITY REVIEW, CELEBRATING THE FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE IGF COALITION ON PLATFORM RESPONSIBILITY 2019 OUTCOME OF THE IGF COALITION ON PLATFORM RESPONSIBILITY. PRESENTED AT THE 14TH UNITED NATIONS INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM. 27 NOVEMBER 2019, BERLIN. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Platform Value(s):A Multidimensional Framework for Online Responsibility Luca Belli and Nicolo Zingales INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS Governing Digital Societies: Private Platforms, Public Values José van Dijck A Constitutional Moment: How We Might Reimagine Platform Governance Nicolas Suzor From the Telegraph to Twitter: The Case for the Digital Platform Act Harold Feld CONFLICTING RIGHTS The New City Regulators: Platform and Public Values in Smart and Sharing Cities Sofia Ranchordas and Catalina Goanta Sanctions on Digital Platforms: Balancing Proportionality in the Modern Public Square Engerrand Marique and Yseult Marique A New Framework for Online Content Moderation Ivar Hartmann ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Socio-Ethical Values and Legal Rules on Automated Platforms: The Quest for a Symbiotic Relationship Rolf H. Weber Democratising Online Content Moderation: A Constitutional Framework Giovanni De Gregorio Platform Values and Democratic Elections: How Can the Law Regulate Digital Disinformation? Chris Marsden, Trisha Meyer and Ian Brown TAX AVOIDANCE The Progressive Policy Shift in the Debate on the International Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy: A “Pretext” for Overhaul of the International Tax Regime? Alessandro Turina 2 E-commerce and Effective VAT/GST Enforcement: Can Online Platforms Play a Valuable Role? Luisa Scarcella ANNEX Best Practices Platforms’ Implementation of the Right to an Effective Remedy Collectively elaborated by members of the IGF Coalition on Platform Responsibility 3 Platform Value(s): A Multidimensional Framework for Online Responsibility Luca Belli* and Nicolo Zingales** Is there a common understanding on the type of values that should be promoted by platform regulations? What values should be baked into platforms’ technical architectures? What values should be promoted and enforced by regulators? Is it acceptable for both platforms and regulators to follow their idiosyncratic views when deciding to prime certain values that will directly affect how individuals communicate, inform themselves, organise their democratic and fiscal systems and conduct businesses globally? The idea behind this special issue was precisely to stimulate a discussion on the multiform notion of platform value(s). The term “value” is thus construed broadly here to embrace a range of social, ethical and juridical values underpinning digital platforms, as well as the economic value that is generated and extracted within platform ecosystems. Digital platforms are themselves central to the digital ecosystem, which in turn dramatically affects the structure of offline activities as well. For instance, platforms provide essential means by which connected individuals find information and information is directed consumers, digital marketplaces allowing both individuals and (small and medium) enterprises to exploit the advantages of e- commerce, and various digital services that have transformed education, communication and entrepreneurship. Increasingly, the ways in which platforms operate affect individuals’ ability to develop their opinion and personality and engage in a substantial amount of social, political and economic interactions. Given the scale of their impact, it is crucial to understand that platforms’ architectural and regulatory choices are not neutral. The values that drive such choices affect both our personal lives and the functioning of our democracies and markets. To give one paradigmatic example, one may simply consider the platforms’ capacity to collect and use personal data. Platforms’ design and regulatory choices in that regard affect simultaneously individuals’ fundamental rights, the functioning of democratic systems, labour relations and competition in the market. They also have significant tax implications, in particular considering that existing fiscal systems struggle to capture the immense value derived from people’s data and the free labour as information producers, and that data processing and monetisation usually takes place in foreign-located servers. On top of this, as societies and economies become increasingly interconnected, (digital) value chains have become global; and the algorithmic systems that organise digital platforms have the potential not only to extract value but also to define values on a global scale, providing extremely effective proxies to exercise influence and control that transcends national borders.1 In this light, the lack of a clear articulation of platforms’ roles and responsibilities in addressing societal challenges has been decried by opposing sides of the political and stakeholder debate, prompting calls for regulation without sufficient consideration of its unintended consequences. These themes were prominent in the discussions hosted over the past years by the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Coalition on Platform Responsibility.2 In preparation for the 2019 IGF in Berlin, a Call for Papers was collaboratively drafted by Coalition members and circulated more *Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) Law School, Brasil. **Associate Professor of Law, University of Leeds, United Kingdom. 1 In this sense, see for instance: Cédric Villani, For a Meaningful Artificial Intelligence towards a French and European Strategy. (Mission assigned by the Prime Minister Édouard Philippe: A parliamentary mission from 8th September 2017 to 8th March 2018) https://www.aiforhumanity.fr/en/ 2 IGF coalitions are issue-focused multistakeholder working groups that meet at the IGF on a yearly basis, and are encouraged to produce outcome documents in the intervening period. 4 widely to solicit reflections and gather a diverse range of analytical perspectives on the various dimensions of platform values. The fifth anniversary meeting of the Coalition on 27 November 2019 will thus offer an opportunity to look back over several years of stimulating and productive multistakeholder interactions3 analysing the roles and responsibilities of platforms and shed light on the Coalition’s intellectual journey into new conceptual grounds. 1. Background: The Coalition’s Journey to Platform Value(s) To understand where we are headed, it is important to know where we are coming from. In this spirit, to grasp the reasons behind this work on “Platform Values” it is necessary to appreciate the evolution of the Coalition’s endeavours. Thus, the following paragraphs provide a background picture of the origins of the Platform Responsibility debate at the IGF, and its progression to the current state, well beyond the forum’s community of stakeholders. First, and to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, it is fair to say that the biggest achievement of the Coalition is to have coined and promoted the very concept of “Platform Responsibility.”4 Such concepts aim at interrogating, on the one hand, the impact that private ordering regimes designed and implemented by platforms have on individuals’ capability to enjoy their fundamental and, on the other hand, the moral, social and human rights responsibility5 that platforms bear when setting up such regimes. The initial goal of this Coalition was to stimulate debate and participatory analysis on the meaning of platform providers’ responsible behaviour. From the early steps, it was clear to participants that the starting point should be an analysis of the application to digital platforms of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights6, in particular their responsibility to respect Human Rights and to grant effective grievance mechanisms.7 To lay the foundations of such work, the participants to the inception meeting of the Coalition, in 2014 at the IGF in Istanbul, suggested the development of a set of recommendations on core dimensions of platform responsibility.8 The resulting Recommendations on Terms of Service and Human Rights9 (hereinafter “the Recommendations”) presented at the 2015 IGF demonstrated that the cross-disciplinary effort facilitated by the Coalition could lead to concrete outcomes, providing a sound response to all those arguing that the IGF is a mere talking shop, unable to achieve tangible outcomes. The Recommendations provide concrete evidence that the IGF can elaborate solid outputs, including recommendations, as the IGF mandate itself explicitly states, prescribing that the Forum shall “find 3 For an overview of the Coalition’s work, see https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/dynamic-coalition-on- platform-responsibility-dcpr 4 See Luca Belli, Primavera De Filippi and Nicolo Zingales, A New Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility within the IGF (Medialaws, 11 June 2014) <http://www.medialaws.eu/a-new-dynamic-coalition-on-platform-responsibility-within-the- igf/> accessed 10 October 2019 5 See John Ruggie, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises (UN Human Rights