Ensuring Digital Signature Legitimateness for Employee Compliance Survey in European Union

How to eSign a document: digital signature legitimateness for Employee Compliance Survey in European Union

good afternoon i guess it is good afternoon for most of you maybe good morning some for some of you my name is jovan corbalia i'm director of diplo foundation and head of geneva internet platform and i have a great great honor to moderate today's session on unpacking eu regulation on digital markets and services this session is co-organized with the european union delegation here in geneva uh french presidency of european union and permanent mission of france in geneva and geneva internet platform where i'm connected connecting from this is really timely discussion because there are many many questions on digital marketing services and there is a major breakthrough i would say for french presidency because many estimates were that digital service market act would would that it would be difficult to get both acts passing during the first six months of the year especially in the context of very very turbulent geopolitics and international developments which all of us are following carefully and the somehow history accelerated history accelerated in negative but in some areas in positive ways and one of the positive ways is serious discussion about content moderation and content challenges it's happening in brussels and obviously everybody is following carefully so-called brussels effects on the digital governance but it is also happening in headquarters of big tech platforms elon musk is trying to reform twitter and to see how to manage content uh differently at this major tech platforms we have very unique context with the many let's say tectonic shift tectonic plates shifting in the digital governance and digital economy so it is an excellent time to discuss two concrete developments coming from european union digital market act dma and digital service act dsa be prepared to learn the new acronyms if you thought that it would be enough to memorize gdpr we are getting more and more of this and probably gdpr is one of the reason why people are alert about future developments because gdpr has had major impact on data governance worldwide therefore in addition to european union united states uh many countries are following developments around these new acts dma and dsa and we have an excellent lineup for today's discussion today's discussion which will follow diplo agile style of having our uh sort of presentation with the with panelists but also having questions and comments in the in the chat and that question and comments will be moderated by my colleague pablina itersa our panelists today are ambassador henry verdier ambassador for digital affairs for ministry of foreign affairs of france mr prabhad agarwal head of digital services and platforms unit at the digiconnect digital directorate general for communication at first content and technology of european commission from geneva internet platform and diplo we have head of digital commerce and internet policy at diplo engineer internet platform and they will bring us different perspectives and different angles to this timely and important discussion therefore in brief follow careful panelists and what they have to say and they can say a lot on this important issue but also make your comments in chat ask questions and whatever you wanted to ask about dsa and dma it is now right moment to ask and we will answer in chat or provide follow-up comments without further ado i would like to invite uh ambassador vedia henry to reflect on this major i would say breakthrough during the french presidency in very complex circumstances uh henry what was the sort of magic that you did in order to pull through these two important acts uh of huge relevance for digital governance over to you henry thank you very much jovan a great pleasure to be with you i didn't know when i did agree accept your invitation but you know that we don't have any more ministers in france so i'm also representing france in the digital g7 today so i made might be a bit [Music] not so long with you as i did once the magic so first i do agree with you the agreement which on the night of 22 to 23 april so you are really in the actuality is very important and probably as important as the gdpr itself and maybe the magic things was a real sense of emergency because we have to face disinformation campaign misinformation radicalization and violent extremism everyone now if i'm understand that we have to to to make something and probably a consensus on the analyze of the the topic because uh even three or five years ago we had some distances on how to understand what's happening and a lot of researchers the work of some economic researchers like gentiles the french nobel prize of economy of course a lot of whistleblowers like frances algon did share a point of view here and if i may i want to i would love to share with you briefly these consensus please go ahead and the mistake we did so actually let's start with a short story in 1917 we did invent internet internet was just a network of computers but as you know a resilient decentralized open network and we all decided more or less that the best way to govern internet was a real multilateral logistical approach so we did build some form to exchange about this as internet governance forum icon etc and we did protect the free open and secure or decentralized and the multi-stakeholder a neutral internet network was very important in 1919 90 tim berners-lee did invent the web with the web went the user-generated content issue and with the so the web is internet for crazy people for everyone and here we had to face uh first set of issues like terrorist content uh child abuse child ography and we didn't think a lot in u.s in europe everywhere and we decided which was very important that the hosting services the machinery is not in charge of content regulation and that law enforcement police justice some administration make the job and that the the main duty of the platform the hosting services was to duty of compliance with the request of law enforcement authorities in europe this is a regular regulation passed in 2000 at the turn of the millennium in france it was injected in the french law in 2004 that's important because 2004 is a year where mark zuckerberg did launch facebook and then 2005 it's youtube and 2006 is twitter and they did present themselves those platforms as hosting services so they said that we are content neutral we cannot regulate the content we cannot filter the content we are just hosting services we will remove whatever you will ask us to remove but we don't do more and we did believe them and probably it was a mistake it was a mistake because they do regulate the content because they do promote some content for a very specific business model which is a personal advertising model so they have a lot of algorithms to to filter to curate to promote and not just the content but the content and your friends and the advertising you do receive a complete ecosystem of information and they do this for a very specific business model which is personal advertising and to to make a great personal advertising you need a lot of data for everyone and to have a lot of data you need a lot of contacts and to have contact you need addiction and to have addiction you need to propose something that people like like sugar or drug so something you deeply believe in some things that make you angry something that makes you fear is very efficient to build addiction and automatically no one decided to do this but the algorithm because they are going to say i will give him the the thing he did like yesterday the other guys are building polarization this answers fragmentation of the opinion and a lot of other issues we have to face so that's the short story and the important story so i don't know maybe around 2015 we started everywhere but especially in europe to think that we have to regulate this but here of course we had other issues so some at these times i spoke about the triangle of death because we could have made three mistakes so the first one is not to do enough so to expect that the automatically the market will regulate itself we can obviously observe that it's not the case the second one would have been to to give too much power to the companies the company is just a company company is not a democracy the company has just responsibility in front of the and we cannot just ask for example to mr zuckerberg or anyone to decide alone without any transparency without counter power without way to contest the decision with i don't know a big ai that we cannot audit we cannot ask them to filter the content of the humanity without yes accountability and responsibility and the third one of course would have been to to give to the states too much power and to build a kind of orwellian world where the state decides this is right this is true this isn't acceptable so during maybe i don't know four or five years everyone did exchange a lot around this and then i don't know how but a new consensus did emerge someone said but we did this with a banking system we did build a compliance framework where the banks has a duty to to be accountable to be compliant but we don't tell to the banks the micro decisions they have to do and someone said but we should do the same with the social network and the dsa i can testify i can witness that i'm very very proud to be an ambassador and to promote the gsa now it's a very elegant solution because the dsa says okay the the companies will have a duty to make a strong risk analysis and to explain if they have the risk to create a new january 6 you know the attacks of the capital and or if they did fix this issue and they will have to make this in front of a strong independent authority with strong audit capacities power so if someone say no no is my company there is no risk of a new january 6 this authority which is not the government which is has a duty to keep the information secret can say okay show me your algorithms show me your data show me the book you did send to your certificates and moderators show me the content you did delayed show me prove me that people have a right to contest your decision and that someone will rate the contestation etc and so first risk analysis and then a fixation plan and again the same authority will have the right to say okay i don't trust you i want evidences i want data and what we do expect is that uh is that uh year after year in this conversation between the companies and the regulation authorities will make more and more precise and efficient rules that's the dsa as i said i feel but we will exchange now with everyone but i feel that that is a very elegant solution because the government won't decide the algorithms nor the content they will just check through an independent authority if the how serious the companies are our account table just one word but very quickly about the gma the dma is another very important issue because we do observe that most of those companies let's say the name the social network or the platforms have a platform strategy and when you have a platform strategy you do control an economic ecosystem with very specific approaches because you don't control them like this you create you you share resources data electronic id payment system and you you are the ground of an ecosystem and you do control the ecosystem but because you are the yes the ground and that's very difficult to see if someone has a new monopoly position and if someone has a if there is a risk of unfair use of this strategical position so we decided that and we are very precise here so this is a dma digital market act for systemic platform for gatekeeper so a platform that does control all the economy it can be of course google it can be facebook i don't know it could be the gsm system so you know you see an infrastructure that does control a huge part of the economy systemic a gatekeeper so for this we have conference authorities we have a regulatory framework but before the dma we did act after the monopoly and after the abuse of this monopoly and now those authorities not other governments those independent conference authorities will have a right to make excellent decisions so to to say no no here there is a risk you are going to a strong control of an important part of the economy we start the discussion before you you destroy all your computers congruence so that actually as you said jordan two i i feel like you two important set of rules and with the gdpr which does which protects privacy and the exchange of private data now in europe we have tools to to protect the privacy to control monopoly on the market and to guarantee a level playing field and to impose a serious real accountability to big tech companies and now we have to play with this probably it will take a few more years to have a good organization but we have a i feel a good framework thank you henry for great summary historical a bit of if you can call it digital confession when it comes to the governance but in the same time as you said things have been developing gradually we didn't know 20 or 25 years ago how things will develop how fast and how dramatically and in chat we had some references for obviously section 230 of defamation act 1996 but you in a way summarize the the developments also on you digital market act which you didn't focus that much is in a way build up from long processes and a lot of experience in brussels in dealing with the market monopolies digital service act was much more careful walking into new let's say new regulatory uh terror terror terra nullius and that's a great great summary uh i don't know if you if you have to to to leave it uh immediately i'm saying with okay just one one one one more question now you will be you uh came into climbing to the base uh whatever camp of a station now it will be next step what you will you what you envisage as some sort of road map which will be passed to check presidency what are the next steps till the end of the year practically on both acts so on both acts they were adopted so now it's time to implement them so maybe it's less a matter of presidencies or more a matter of nation member states and maybe creating a framework for the independent authorities to exchange together and maybe for the states to ask them some precise question to to be aware about this etc now next project is something another but complementary project is to promote and maybe to finance the digital comments because another way to be sovereign states and democratic countries is to be sure that everyone can innovate within digital commons so some things that you cannot be excluded from that's the important aspect of comments like wikipedia free software open source map so common commons can be data or software or even infrastructure and we have the feeling uh a lot of people not just french maybe the ancient people from the digital revolution that we are losing a bit the public core of internet and the digital commons open standards for example is something very european quite every open standards of the of internet were invented and promoted by european countries even bluetooth or adsl or web or linux linux etc and we have to be sure that we will continue to innovate and live in a world with enough comments and this is a i like also this approach because this is a more concrete and bottom-up approach it's not regulation it's not not legislation it's just sharing resources for innovators it's an empowerment strategy so maybe the next thing and the thing will share with the czech presidency is uh to promote and why not finance uh digital comments just for those of you who are new um henry mcafee has a very interesting background also from open data community therefore he is now complaining combining this with diplomacy and there's open is becoming more and more used around open run open standards open issues we are putting it at geneva internet pattern on our policy radar to follow and probably in june we'll have a event on the commons and open and thank you henry for bringing bringing this please stay with us as much as you can if there are any questions specific for you after you leave for g7 meeting will pass to you we now move to uh to brussels to prabhupad agarwal and uh to hear more uh um let's say nitty gritties on the on these developments on these two important acts uh after um henry uh set the wider political and diplomatic canvas for this painting what are the some details or some important elements prague but please let us know yes thank you thank you very much for giving me also the opportunity i'm proud at the european commission i was in charge of the development of the tsa and the dma here and then for the commission i was negotiating and now we are indeed switching to the implementation of these uh two important uh legal acts um i think in a nutshell we wanted to um reform the regulatory framework in the european union for uh big tech platforms and uh maybe um instead of taking you through the individual details and then ambassador verdier already gave a really brilliant introduction to many aspects um i wanted to um summarize a number of challenges uh that we faced which make it um which we had to take into account uh um specifically so first of all um the population of regulated entities what we generally call platforms is unlike in the banking sector or unlike in the telecom sector or other regulated sectors of the energy or railway sectors you know is a very heterogeneous uh heterogeneous uh population you know their companies such as amazon or or tick tock you know have have limited uh things in common in the way uh that they operate yet they have um some fundamental uh concepts in common namely that they are driven by data driven network effects those that were first analyzed by nobel prize winner gentile who was already mentioned before but uh from looking from a distance um the individual companies in the population what we broadly call online platforms uh are potentially very different and the sector that we are dealing with at the in in the big tech sector is very much heterogeneous and the different services are not immediately substitutable with each other so you can switch one bank and go to the next one it's basically the same service or you can switch a telecoms operator and go to the next one and it's basically the same and the trains in spain are very similar to the trains in france or uh somewhere else and so but this is not the same on that platform so this is one big challenge that we had second big challenge is that um these are companies that unlike the other sectors that i i mentioned is that they are not reliant on a physical infrastructure so these are data-driven companies uh that are changing uh fast uh they are evolving very gradually they have grown enormously uh much quicker than any other sector in uh in in the past and um and with that uh come also particular challenges in designing an appropriate uh regulatory framework so that was a challenge number two challenge number three was and this was already mentioned it was to um not fall into the trap of trading off freedom of expression with user safety what we wanted to do is to do both improve protections for freedom of expression and provide for a higher degree of user safety online notably uh when it comes to the proliferation of illegal content uh on on platforms but also as we have seen most recently the concerns uh around manipulation of platforms for example in the context of elections so um this balance um and this um hand going hand-in-hand with framework expression and user safety is really a uh something that we've been thinking about for a long time it's not an easy it's not an easy equilibrium and some some people have also gotten it wrong in the past either on one side or on the other side as part of this reform we had to indeed reform um the equivalent of the section 230 communications decency act the intermediary liability provisions and so this was part of our our reform progress and we added on a catalogue of so-called due diligence obligations on top in the dsa the fourth challenge we had which is more in the dma was to make sure that we um regulate certain business practices of so-called gatekeeper companies in the dma uh while keeping the markets open and innovative and contestable so this was a this was also a very important challenge and and this was rooted again on a very deep analysis of the market dynamics that are fundamentally different in data-driven platform markets um compared to traditional markets uh where network effects are typically much weaker and and lock-in situations uh develop uh less easily and less uh frequently so i would say in a nutshell those were our four um big challenges to uh define a a regulation a regulatory framework for a very heterogeneous set of companies that are that are tied together by these data driven network effects that's number one number two um to have a a a regulatory framework is flexible enough for when the sector evolves that we can uh respond to it uh quickly and flexibly and over the last five years we've had a lot of new phenomena um that were appearing quickly whether it's uh it's disinformation or it's the sale of non-compliant face masks in the times of covet or many other examples now that we are witnessing also in the context of the war against ukraine my hour just to recall that our third big challenge was to increase both freedom of expressions protections in light in line with international human rights norms but at the same time providing for adequate protection of user safety and this included the reform of the liability protections and finally to have a framework for fair and contestable market that is pro innovation where protects are also small innovators in in markets that are very strongly shaped uh and determined in fact by uh big gatekeeper companies so um maybe in a nutshell i stopped here those were the the the big uh um the the big elements we've been working on these proposals for quite some time in the european commission together with member states and third-party stakeholders in a um had many public consultations the most recent one had many thousand uh replies the the argumentation in the european union before presenting laws have to be based on so-called impact assessments where we have to bring together all of the evidence the different options that were analyzed um the cost and benefits of each of the options have to be compared and this was done very carefully um and uh and and so the the process uh then recently came to a conclusion and now uh we expect the text to be finalized we're in the technical finalization process at the moment and then we will move towards the implementation and that's my final word the implementation will be entrusted to the european commission where we will take powers that the european commission at the moment has under anti-trust laws and they will apply them also in this area um to uh platform regulation overall with this uh giovanna i stop and i look forward to the questions thank you prabhupad tap and henry i'm teaching at the college of europe in uh in bruges and i'm teaching digital diplomacy and negotiation and other issues but after hearing about complex and complicated issues two of you had to manage together with your colleagues i'm sure i will advise the the leadership of college of europe to invite you to some special session on the negotiation negotiating complex issues because it's really fascinating how many different perspectives you had to handle from technology inclusion law uh interest of a member states relation with united states and it's really complex exercise now uh we will we will be i'm always curious in this negotiation when i see the text to see to read between the lines and what are the sort of uh issues uh issues that were focused that because in any text you have most of the time spent on few words on a few phrases you know that at least my experience from negotiation therefore if you can you and henry reveal it later on as much as you can that would be great i know the document and paper is still in in the process of uh political takeoff which is delicate phase i will now turn before we pass floor to marily i will turn now to my colleague pablinatorson specialist for the these issues who uh paulina was following uh chat paulina what questions do we have from chad for our two speakers or comments um yes thank you joran so we do have uh quite a lively discussion in the chat about my camera i'm back um first richard and michael jumped right in into the global arena and started to discuss how these new regulations will interact in different liability regimes specifically with section 230 of communication decency act in the u.s and how the different concepts of freedom of speech between united states and eu will interact with each other under these new regulations so that is the first question very interesting one second question david fairchild asked whether the panelists could enlighten the relationship between dsa and dma and linkage with the ai act coming up and then we have discussion about a question about impact on sellers using uh intermediary platforms and whether they'll be exposed to the new regulation and the fourth question is is there a rigorous analysis of market power and substitutional ability thank you carl frank for this hard word among platforms and platforms to brick and mortar so um i'll leave it to the panelists to pick their favorite ones thank you thank you thank you pablina let's let's hear andrea if you're still with us uh let's hear from you and then uh we we moved to prague but to uh to reflect uh you heard the questions basically uh compliance with other liability regimes uh market power linked to the future ai regulation you can pick up any of these four questions and let us know your views briefly i'm not a specialist of section 2 230 yes i feel com but that's just a feeling that they should reconsider the exact status of those kind of platform who are not just hosting services but meter media with a a an editorial publishing policy and with a lot of curation regarding the first amendment i have here a strong position there is nothing to do with the first amendment for two reasons first the first amendment forgive the government to control content not the company and actually if you do observe they all have for a long time strong content policies and they all uh forbid a lot of a lot of content for a long time try to use try to use a picture with us nudes naked people as a try to use it on facebook and you will see the freedom of speech of the platform so they have content policies they have the right to have content policies and and that's the most important and the second reason we we don't pretend to control the content itself we we we as states are governments we want to write a list of prohibited content we'll ask the companies to show us how how they manage the the issues with this context the publicization terrorist content villain extremists hate or disinformation so we try to regulate yes someone wrote this in the chat the algorithmic policy not the content policies so from my perspective there is absolutely no concern with the first amendment and when i do exchange with a lot of u.s authorities they recognize this they just say that they may have some trouble politically because of course in a political controversy that's easy to to say but we are the country of the first amendment we don't want but actually legally speaking in front of a judge uh there is nothing to do with the first amendments for the sellers from my perspective because we do regulate or we will regulate the algorithmic content policy i don't see any any strong consequence for sellers so you maybe you have to know that there is another text that we are thinking about in europe which is for political advertising to regulate or to limit compartmental behavioral advertising for political advertising but that's just for in the very specific field which is politics particular thank you thank you henry uh for for this point that for your summaries first amendment no major problem we'll hear from prabhupada on the section 230 no major issue for sellers maybe prabhat you can also reflect on the on the david's question of link to the emerging ai regulation which is uh which is which is coming uh over to your prophet any of these four questions and particularly this few which which remain to be answered sure i mean maybe just the ai act is a is is um has a has a fundamentally different scope it deals with any type of artificial intelligence with it's not just limited to online platforms or digital services so uh it also covers um you know ais in in in other hardware applications or in in in social scoring situations those kind of situations much different from uh just the the issues that that we are that we are looking at at the moment and the basic issue around the ai act is that it um it seeks to lay down criteria for what constitutes a high high risk ai application and in that case um if you fall within these criteria then you have to carry out a particular uh assessment of these risks uh you know similar to kind of documentary uh ex ante um checks that you do uh you know in other areas like you know regulated areas so the link um with the digital services act is mainly in the area of algorithms that are used for content moderation you know so that that's really uh where there's a and there the dsa goes the digital services that goes further in terms of the the the rules we have um for example rules that uh give power to users to choose how a particular um recommended system algorithm is presented to them they have to uh platforms have to present different different alternatives including one which is not based on profiling um that that reflects the concern in the european union about excessive data extraction um personal data extraction and for for the purpose of optimizing services um and um you know what's broadly referred to as the attention economy in uh in these things so there's an interface between the two acts but they are quite distinct i just want to add one thing in terms of sellers because i think that the digital services act and also the digital markets act they do have a number of wide-ranging additional benefits for sellers and i can name just a few first of all i think that um in in the digital services act there's a very important distinction which linked to the liability immunities um on whether the platform um makes it clear that they are interacting with uh whether you're buying from a third-party seller or from the platform and often this is not clear to the seller you know you go to amazon or you go to some other website i mean recently there was a case in france about a holiday renting website and for a normal user it was impossible to tell whether this is you actually um in you're actually taking a product which is being made available by the platform or by the third party seller so that is a um an important distinction um that is uh that is made in the digital services act on the um digital services act sellers get another range of obligations but also many protections for example um the listing of the of the service from a platform uh is no longer possible without any procedural safeguards so you can't just be kicked off you know so uh off of a platform um so there are dispute resolution mechanisms and out of court dispute resolution mechanisms there's an obligation for transparency for statements of reasons if you get removed or your account gets suspended your content gets removed you have to document the platform has to document uh why it has done so so these procedural safeguards are quite important also for smell sellers on uh on platforms similarly in the digital markets act actually there is a prohibition for the platforms to use third-party sellers data for their own benefits you know and that's a very important thing that we've come across quite often that um that the third-party seller data is being used uh or that you're locked into the payment service of the of the platforms for example in the context of abstract so i'm just giving some examples but there's actually quite a lot of benefits for um concrete benefits you know not just hypothetically but really practical benefits for uh um for sellers who are uh intermediating through uh uh through platforms and the whole idea is to lower to to to lower the the barriers to to compete because and and to uh um improve the contestability of markets as well so the first question on freedom of expression and and the first amendment i think that maybe i can just um recall that i think ambassador was actually right like the charter fundamental rights in the european union the first amendment constraints government action we have aligned the digital services act in particular to international human rights norms um whether it's the icpr or the european charter of human rights and um and and and we've been very carefully uh basing ourselves on the existing case law international human rights case law um when it comes to intermediate intermediary liabilities um and obligations of platforms and so um in what i want to say is that we believe that the digital services act is really very strongly furthering um protections also for fundamental rights and notably freedom of expression is fully consistent with international human rights norms and um and the us is also signatory to international human rights norms in the area of freedom of expression lastly i think i would say that in the context of the trade and technology council where we're working with the united states government um also on platforms we have a working group a working group five dedicated to platform governance we actually have a really very close and very constructive and productive cooperation with the us government and and and we have started some concrete cooperation projects around the dsa notably on issues such as algorithmic amplification on data access for researchers on transparency standards around content moderation so um there is ampers scope for productive and and multi-stakeholder engagement around these issues and international cooperation thank you for for giving us a bit of a small print i think it's it's important to to uh to know there was a question for henry and you and marilla later on from carl frank which is interesting question we take assumption that there are monopolies and not substitutability of the platforms but carl asked for some some evidence and that that could be later on we can we can reflect on that and there are more and more messages and questions now there will be two places where the dsndma will definitely land one is luxembourg and european court of justice i'm sure that there will be court cases that would be interesting to anticipate and the other is geneva where the links to the trade negotiation human rights and standardization will be will be happening and this is the intro for marilia to reflect on the global impact we already heard on transatlantic dynamics with the uh 230 and the first amendment marilla what are the other impacts broader impacts of dsa and dma on the global scale uh why are geneva or directly to the continents and countries or too thank you jovan when i saw the lineup of speakers to this session it was really clear to me that other speakers could provide an overview of the political background and the key provisions of these instruments better than i could um so i appreciate your question yoga because it is related to putting these instruments into this broader regulatory context and and that's what i'm going to try to do and also to make some connections between these processes and other digital policy discussions that are taking place especially on cyber security and e-commerce negotiations taking place at the wto i think that ambassador verdier started with a very important point historical point because the first thing to bear in mind is that the regulators approach on regulating the digital economy has changed remarkably over the over the years there was a majority of you that thought that the digital market should be left alone in the beginning and i think that it was mostly based on the fact that first of all platforms and social media that they were seen as strategic spaces of uh of guaranteeing free speech and we may recall for instance how we praised the role that social media play played back in the in the green revolution in iran or the orange revolution in ukraine and now we see this in a more nuanced manner there was also an understanding that any kind of regulation with a stifle innovation and uh we really saw regulation and innovation as two things that were at odds and uh and we're happy to know that this is not the case anymore we see that innovation requires regulation many times and we also understood that the digital market would be so dynamic that it would have the capacity to so almost readjust and recalibrate uh itself we believed that the principle of uh there are no permanent favors favorites that has been elaborated by the technical community which actually means that the architecture of the internet is open to any type of innovation and agnostic with regards to the players that are operating it would be enough to foster a competitive environment and we know that this is not uh the case anymore so the idea back then was if it ain't broken don't try to fix it last affair but we came to the conclusion that digital economy if it's not broken is showing some important cracks that we have discussed here in terms of the shortcomings of limited liability um and and the proliferation of this information of harmful speech illegal content and economic problems we see over over the years how many international reports from the world bank from the world economic forum from neumat has shown how uh inequality has grown in terms of the distribution of wealth in the digital economy and we see more concentration happening in the market vertically horizontally we see companies uh um taking uh space in the market amazon owing cloud services facebook owing back on and so on so against this background i think that a whole spectrum of countries from u.s to china are currently looking at these two areas liability and competition and they are recognizing that we do have a problem they are taking steps uh either to correct this with policies being put in place right now or um in the in the near future and i think that this creates a political momentum and the conditions really face the power of larger tech companies which to be honest uh they are more powerful than many countries many governments around the world and this could also create the conditions to engage in more healthy conversation about uh how to reach international harmonization when it comes to finding legal solutions as we heard this is already happening in the transatlantic relation with the us through the trading technology council but i think more needs to be done in relation to to china and to illustrate these points i think that we have touched a lot upon um on what is happening in the regulatory space in the u.s there has been a quite dramatic change in terms of regulation i think that there is a growing view that the the platforms enough they will not foster a democracy or the growth of small businesses or innovation so there's a plenty of regulations that are coming up but i think that we didn't mention china enough in this conversation so that's uh that's aware i would like to to focus a little bit because china has surpassed recently uh several regulations on data protection for instance which also applies extra territorially such as the gdpr and they have new laws in cyber security on algorithm transparency and and competition and although the so-called crackdown on companies is usually portrayed as a product of president xi jinping's authoritarian stance these measures they are actually aligned with ideals which are much more deeply rooted in chinese socialist political system which is uh politically translated into the banner of a common prosperity which is the umbrella where all these different digital policies uh lie um so the idea is that the overly rich are not a good social model if their riches are not actually translating into commence rate benefits to the society as a whole and the chinese economy is really suffering from the approval of these recent measures at the moment and they lost in terms of fleeing um a foreign direct investment more than one trillion by now and it's interesting to see how in europe the dma is being largely welcomed but at the same time norms to foster competition in china and i'm not entering the merits of the nitty gritty of these norms but they get labeled um as anti-liberal and authoritarian by western media and i think that does not help the establishment of dialogue that i was talking about before which i think it's really important at the moment so we talk a lot about the brussels effect which is undeniable if you look at how the gdpr has influenced data protection and regulation worldwide but i think that in upcoming years we will talk more and more about the beijing effect in terms of regulation too because of many different factors first of all the market size um just like uh europe china has the size of markets that most companies cannot ignore so they need to comply with regulation to operate in china there is an increasing number of companies and countries which are consuming chinese technology and that there's also the fact that chinese regulatory model could be closer to the reality of other asian economies making it perhaps more feasible as a model for them to adopt in terms of exporting regulation i think china is well positioned there so i think that the bottom line is that um chinese regulation will definitely influence the global conversation that we're having here in terms of uh regulation but i feel like europe also has a very distinguishing competitive adventure advantage in terms of regulation um because it is based on the on approach that puts individuals and their rights at the center of policy making as we have been hearing here in the u.s it's interesting but because the discussions are are happening around an economic angle of competition election interference in china they are happening from an angle also economic of social prosperity um and also controlling speech trying to promote a positive online environment as they they name it and promoting social harmony but uh china aims towards a more collective perspective in which it's my understanding the individual gets a bit lost and i think europe has a key role in sort of putting the individual and its rights back into the picture in terms of regulatory approach and that is quite interesting sorry yogurt thank you marilla it's a it's a great because this is true that we often have a blind spot when we discuss this issue focus uh uh focus uh on on a few places but dynamics and what's happening in beijing is extremely important we have brussels effect but maybe beijing effect definitely washington traditionally and we hope some geneva effect has a space of the let's say soft governance and soft power uh let us let us hear quickly from energy we have about five minutes and acceptivity if i with your permission get extended for fume session for a few minutes henry uh your comments and then we'll hear from pablina about the questions and uh and the answer to the questions or do you angry thank you very much so i completely marilla share your concern of course china want another internet and another web and another company's regulation and we do observe a lot of approaches especially in the itu of course i i share with jovan the idea that i say this publicly that geneva is a very important ecosystem because this is the ecosystem of technical multilateralism so in geneva people know what they are speaking about concretely more than i can say this publicly more than in new york for example which is more political now i wanted to share with you a very important idea and maybe that's why i would love you to remember if you remember my short story we have i i think that we european we have to to be very precise about the difference between internet which is as i said decentralized open free neutral and with a good multi-stakeholder governance that we have to protect and i'm not sure with succeeding because we have a lot of clouds but the other way of crowd upon this multi-stakeholder governance and this unique internet and the web and the companies and i want to to tell publicly that facebook is not the internet and actually it is not even a continuation of the internet it is a private space with private roles built on top of the internet so facebook or another social network it's not decentralized it's not open i don't know how it works i don't see the algorithm it's not free i cannot go within facebook and make my business it is absolutely not not for they they have algorithms to filter and propagate content everywhere so obviously we can in the same way fight stand for the open and public and free and neutral internet and ask for a regulation of this kind of companies i'm very comfortable to make both in the same diplomacy because it's completely different i i in too many people even in france too many journalists for example tell me but i don't understand are you against regulation or pro-regulation are you against free speech or pro-free speech we are but most european for the the free open internet we that empower the people to to make and for big monopoly monopolistic companies regulation and i saw a comment in the chat in the dsa we have and we did negotiate a lot a very precise definition of systemic actors they have to have more than 40 million users every month in more than six countries and blah blah and blah blah and there is a strong definition so it's not every company that we don't like thank you henry thank you and this partially answer to carl's question but we'll reflect more on that in the follow-up on the evidence evidence on that now we have just two minutes more with your kind permission i will just slide uh a few minutes ago it was make me in the time precision country or switzerland maybe persona non grata but i think it's so interesting discussion that i will be tolerated now paulina back to you for the questions and then in particular prabhat and other panelists for the answers over to you pablina twitter style thank you johan we have two questions left so i'll be quick uh one is related to the algorithms so the question is generally governments refrain from seeking source code of algorithms from from digital platforms why and why regulators use our algorithms to detect biased algorithm use of technology to regulate technology basically and the second question is a more general one dma and dsa do impact regular functioning of supply marketplaces where is the line between the traditional competition law and dma and dsa uh in a sense where you don't think of dma and dsa in terms of regulating freedom of speech but more on impact on customers in the b2b marketplace so those are great thank you move from users uh from consumers to users and back but i think the questions are close to uh to your core expertise and experience from negotiating could you uh uh make a try to to comment on these two questions on ai and the question of competition and uh the second one or two well it's very very briefly um twitter started as you say i mean algorithms in the in the digital services act um there are two elements to algorithm regulation one is to empower users to know what's happening and to give them choice this was already stated it very much our center second is to allow experts um to inspect algorithms um including regulators so those are two levels um primarily for an end user like a normal person and disclosure of the source code is not something that that is useful because i mean you need to be you need to have kind of multiple phds in computer science to be able to uh um understand them but they can under certain circumstances be um be be inspectable in the context of an of a violation of certain rules but it should not be a precondition for uh um for for markets it's a little bit um you know when you have a car as a user you want to be able to drive the car and understand how it functions you know the user manual needs to be clean and clear and easily understandable you want your garage the repairman to be able to open the hood and inspect the engine but he does not need to know the trade secrets of the manufacturers of the car so it's a little bit dissimilar i mean sorry for the simple analogy is that as a user i need to know how the car functions enough so i can drive it and it needs to explain its functioning to me i want to be able to take it to a garage so somebody can expect if something is wrong in that case this is a bad analogy but um this would be the the the role assigned to regulators um and and and then that that still does not require knowledge of how the car was actually manufactured so it's a not a great analogy but maybe just to give you some insight in uh and how it and certainly we can we will use technology um and some member states notably france and and others have already got great prototypes on on you know on how terms and conditions are changing monitoring that or on on how to determine bias and algorithmic systems and those tools will be essential in the regulatory function as we as we go forward so certainly we can use it and the question interaction with competition law is really interesting and and actually um in the impact assessment of the digital markets act we spend a lot of time note that we did this uh initiative together with the colleagues from responsible for antitrust enforcement uh dg competition and was a very interesting uh experience i think one of the key differences is that antitrust enforcement is exposed it happens after the fact on a case-by-case basis for an individual company that is abusing its dominant in a in a in a particular well-defined market sector what we are doing in the dma is quite different is uh um is the opposite is what we call ex ante it's prior to uh um it's prior to uh to to an abuse it just gives signposts that certain types of behaviors uh the so-called do's and don'ts are not acceptable why because they have um been demonstrated to to limit uh um contestability of markets entrance into markets uh and uh and they are recurrent uh features of many data driven um network effects that we have documented in the background material in the anti-trust cases that we have come across so um this is the big difference with anti-trust and foreign enforcement um that we call it this goes exposed and exposed uh also has to be said is uh certainly also as as still possible and and uh you will have seen that the european union has for example open opened a case on uh on recently just on apple um on the access to the payments uh infrastructure inside an apple iphone um for potential anti-competitive practices so that is that those those prac those uh investigations will continue to to to be pursued thank you for the this really comprehensive and clear answer and with this i would like to thank uh all of you who attended the session make made an interesting content comments and in particular panelists ambassador henry verdier mr prabhad aggarwal and miss marilya maciel for really not only uh giving us broader context for this new issue that we'll focus on but also focusing on specific details it is the first step on the long journey please stay keep involved with us we'll send the summary of the discussion and we'll be following carefully developments on dsa and dma in particular with regard to the links between what's going on in brussels and the geneva dynamics and genomic ecosystem on the question of e-commerce human rights standards and many other issues that are triggered by dsndma and that are likely to come into the focus on policy discussion in geneva i wish you a nice day morning afternoon evening wherever you are located uh stay staying connected to this discussion and the geneva internet platform updates including newsletter which is coming tomorrow all the best bye recording stopped