Suchergebnisse

Many online news media are experimenting with personalisation. News personalisation means that each news user receives a selection of articles specifically selected for them. This research asks how EU fundamental rights can inform the regulation of the relationship between online news media that personalise the news and their users. The fundamental right to data protection, which is given expression in the GDPR, and the fundamental right to receive information, give rise to concrete regulatory guidelines for news personalisation. News users should be empowered to stop personalisation at any moment, and they should have the option to change their user profiles. Furthermore, states should ensure that news personalisation does not diminish the diversity of the content which people receive. The fundamental rights to freedom of thought, opinion, and expression do not lead to concrete regulatory imperatives for news personalisation. The bar to establish an interference with the right to freedom of thought or opinion is high, and it is a stretch to suggest that news personalisation interferes with the ability of people to express themselves freely. Nonetheless, personalised news media have arbitrary power over news users' choices, thereby limiting the freedom of thought, opinion, and expression of news users. The arbitrariness of this power can be reduced by allowing news users to participate in the personalisation process, in a manner that goes beyond giving consent to process their personal data or ticking some boxes in their user profile. News users should be able to exercise control over the goals for which their news feeds are personalised. The conclusion is that some fundamental rights are suitable to regulate news personalisation. In contrast, for other fundamental rights, we need a few extra steps of translation and eventually additional legislation to fully guarantee these rights in the personalised news environment.

Which legal, ethical and societal conditions need to be fulfilled for the use of digital solutions in managing the COVID-19 exit-strategy? This was the central question of this research. Digital technologies can be part of solutions to societal challenges, for example to manage the pandemic and lead the Netherlands out of the COVID-19 crisis. One set of technologies that figured particularly prominently in that debate was the use of contact tracing apps like the CoronaMelder, as well as digital vaccination passports (CoronaCheck app). In the Netherlands, Europe and worldwide, the introduction of apps such as the CoronaMelder or the CoronaCheck app was met by criticism from experts, politicians, civil society and academics. Concerns range from the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of such apps, uncertainty about the conditions that need to be fulfilled to reach their goal, our growing dependency on technology companies up to worries about the fundamental rights and adverse effects for vulnerable groups, such as elderly or users without a smart phone. The overall goal of the research was to monitor the societal, ethical and legal implications of implementing apps like the CoronaMelder, and from that draw lessons for the future use of 'technology-assisted governance solutions'. One important conclusion from the report is that 'there are no easy technological fixes, and in order for a technological solution to work, it needs to be part of a broader vision on what such a solution needs to function in society, achieve its intended goals and respect the fundamental rights of users as well as non-users.' The report also offers critical reflections on the need for democratic legitimisation and accountability, the role of big tech and insights on the societal impact of the CoronaMelder and other technological solutions.