/pdf/a-break-in-the-clouds-towards-a-cloud-definition-svovsw1r5a.pdf

A Break in the Clouds: Towards a Cloud Definition

The identification of Hate Speech in Social Media is of great importance and receives much attention in the text classification community. There is a huge demand for research for languages other than English. The HASOC track intends to stimulate development in Hate Speech for Hindi, German and English. Three datasets were developed from Twitter and Facebook and made available. Binary classification and more fine-grained subclasses were offered in 3 subtasks. For all subtasks, 321 experiments were submitted. The approaches used most often were LSTM networks processing word embedding input. The performance of the best system for identification of Hate Speech for English, Hindi, and German was a Marco-F1 score of 0.78, 0.81 and 0.61, respectively.

/pdf/overview-of-the-hasoc-track-at-fire-2019-hate-speech-and-27y6nbsevs.pdf

Overview of the HASOC track at FIRE 2019: Hate Speech and Offensive Content Identification in Indo-European Languages

Reading is a hobby to open the knowledge windows. Besides, it can provide the inspiration and spirit to face this life. By this way, concomitant with the technology development, many companies serve the e-book or book in soft file. The system of this book of course will be much easier. No worry to forget bringing the internet co regulation european law regulatory governance and legitimacy in cyberspace 1st edition book. You can open the device and get the book by on-line.

Internet Co-Regulation: European Law, Regulatory Governance and Legitimacy in Cyberspace

This Comment considers the new EU draft regulation on data privacy - especially its controversial provision establishing a "right to be forgotten" - and argues that the regulation implicitly creates the kind of propertized data regime that scholars proposed and debated a decade ago. The Comment identifies the key conceptual features of a data property regime, explains how the draft regulation implicitly embodies these features, and compares this property-centric framing to the human-rights framing that tends to dominate discussions of data privacy.

The EU General Data Protection Regulation: Toward a Property Regime for Protecting Data Privacy

The traditional concepts of practicing the law do not follow the pace of the development of the new technologies. Faced with inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the courts regulators are constantly looking into alternatives to increase access to justice and improve efficiency of the dispute resolution mechanisms. The EU has recently enacted ADR and ODR regulations for consumer cross-border disputes. At the same time, we have witnessed parallel attempts from several public bodies and international organisations to introduce the legal framework for the resolution disputes coming out of online transactions. These proposals are in principle focusing on e-commerce aspects of dealing with low-cost consumer/seller disputes. The development of cloud computing services, as a form of e-commerce last decade, raised new issues of applicable law, jurisdiction, access to justice, the legal nature of the disputes, consumer protection etc. To obtain cloud computing services users generally accept a predefined contract of adhesion, where the terms should be accepted on “as is” basis. Non-negotiable predefined terms often tend to be in favor of providers. This research answers do the currently available dispute resolution mechanisms provide adequate means to resolve cross-border low-value disputes between cloud providers and users, and if not, what legal measures can be taken to improve access to justice and fairness in this domain.

Dispute Resolution for Cloud Services: Access to Justice and Fairness in Cloud-Based Low-Value Online Services

https://orbilu.uni.lu/bitstream/10993/33861/1/1-s2.0-S0267364917301681-main.pdf

Property and the cloud

This paper suggests a new approach towards online service provider liability which relies on duty of care. It proposes a concrete compliance framework for online platforms, borrowed from risk regulation, and modeled on anti-money laundering (AML) obligations in the financial sector. First, the prohibition on obliging platforms to monitor content in a general manner under the E-Commerce Directive will be discussed. On the face of it this may clash with a standardized requirement to filter for infringing content. Subsequently, the regulatory choice for such a duty of care standard will be explored. It is argued that the largely self-regulatory proposals currently on the table may be ill fitted to achieve traction and accountability. Finally, a three-tier compliance framework, modeled on the AML system and using a risk-based approach, is proposed. The pitfalls of such a highly automated compliance solution, which enforces complex legal norms, will also be touched on.

/pdf/a-risk-based-approach-towards-infringement-prevention-on-the-2il1mvsnkc.pdf

A risk-based approach towards infringement prevention on the internet: adopting the anti-money laundering framework to online platforms

This article reviews recent regulatory initiatives in the area of EU product safety legislation and market surveillance from the angle of e-commerce through online marketplaces. With the arrival of...

/pdf/new-approach-meets-new-economy-enforcing-eu-product-safety-1g9wr8hxjj.pdf

New Approach meets new economy: Enforcing EU product safety in e-commerce:

This contribution will give a brief overview of EU legislation encouraging self-regulation, such as codes of conduct, communications and recommendations and propose an alternative approach towards fighting illegal content on online platforms, which ventures squarely into co-regulation.

There is no formal and straightforward definition on what constitutes illegal hate speech. However, hate speech might be classified as targeting minority groups in a way that promotes violence or social disorder and hatred. The use of social media and online platforms to spread illegal content and hate speech has increased progressively during recent years, as content may be disseminated anonymously and further shared by other users. Therefore, the timely removal or blocking of access to illegal content is essential to limit the wider dissemination and harm of individuals targeted by hate speech.

The prominent role of online platforms in revolutionising modern communication and as influencers of the public opinion has increasingly come to the attention of policy makers. Since online platforms provide an important stage for phenomena such as ‘fake news’, ‘hate speech’ or ‘disinformation’, the pressure to take more responsibility over content hosted by them has grown.

The EU Commission took action via several attempts to set certain rules for online intermediaries, mostly relying on non-binding agreements, often in the form of self-regulatory measures, such as codes of conduct, guidelines and recommendations.

These measures have raised concerns regarding possible limitations of Freedom of Expression, because they require online platforms to adjudicate on the legality of content, often by relying on automated systems. Meanwhile decisions over the unlawfulness of hate speech and “disinformation” are often notoriously difficult.

The deployment of algorithms to analyse the content generated on platforms, such as recognition and filtering technologies, bear risks and pitfalls of automated compliance solutions. Although the use of algorithms to monitor content online still happens based on the “human-in-the-loop principle”, the diligence and efficiency with which illegal content can be reviewed is also dependent on the financial capacity and resources of each company. In addition, these privatised removal procedures may be influenced by commercial interests and lack effective appeals mechanisms. 

All these issues generate serious questions about the democratic legitimacy of self-regulatory removal procedures.

An alternative solution, proposed in this article, would require platforms to apply a risk-based approach to preventing and removing illegal content. The norms and standards of such an approach would be based on duty of care and be subject to regulatory oversight. It is suggested that the current self-regulatory proposals be replaced by co-regulatory solutions.

/pdf/self-regulation-of-fundamental-rights-the-eu-code-of-conduct-dv3gun39dp.pdf

Self-Regulation of Fundamental Rights? The EU Code of Conduct on Hate Speech, Related Initiatives and Beyond

JIPITEC 8 (2017) 2 - The EU’s current regulatory framework for the content liability of online intermediaries was created in 2000 with the E-Commerce Directive (ECD) Already in those days, during the run-up to the ECD, there was an intense debate regarding whether a light-touch approach or more stringent content liability regime for intermediaries would be the appropriate way forward 20 years later the debate is essentially led from the same angle, but has predictably, increased in complexity as the internet makes massive strides in transforming the “offline” world There are those who argue that a purely horizontal approach in regulating internet intermediaries, or online platforms, remains sufficient Others think the time has come to reflect the disruptive entrances online platforms made in various sectors of society in more vertical changes affecting substantive law The EU Commission sits on the fence it seems, however In its communication on online platforms and the digital single market, the Commission announced last year that it would leave the current intermediary liability regime as it is for now “while implementing a sectoral, problem-driven approach to regulation” This paper will map out and critically evaluate some current sectoral (read vertical) regulatory developments, which may affect intermediary liability It will look at recent, more top-down approaches proposed by the EU (eg in copyright), as well as self-regulatory efforts This will be compared to less publicized developments, which have notably taken place in the area of product and financial regulation affecting ecommerce, such as for example efforts to combat the sale of fake medicines, unsafe products online, or anti-money laundering compliance In these areas, it is argued that regulatory authorities have more proactively engaged online platforms, both on a legislative and practical level A special focus in this context will be on the role of reasonable duties of care which intermediaries may be required to apply in order to detect and prevent infringements Could these more “grassroots” developments and the convergence of online and offline worlds provide blueprints to encourage the development of a new content liability framework based on sectoral duties of care?

/pdf/standards-for-duty-of-care-debating-intermediary-liability-ek5h3zm3jj.pdf

Carsten Ullrich

Papers

Property and the cloud

A risk-based approach towards infringement prevention on the internet: adopting the anti-money laundering framework to online platforms

New Approach meets new economy: Enforcing EU product safety in e-commerce:

Self-Regulation of Fundamental Rights? The EU Code of Conduct on Hate Speech, Related Initiatives and Beyond

Standards for duty of care? Debating intermediary liability from a sectoral perspective