Ref. Ares(2022)5170881 - 15/07/2022
DSA and DMA
•
Ongoing
decision
-making •
process
Art 4(3)
first
•
subpara
graph
•
•
3
Code of Practice
A centrepiece of the EU’s efforts to fight disinformation has been the Code of Practice on
Disinformation, which has been in place since 2018. It is the first instrument of its kind
worldwide, and the result of self-regulatory efforts by platforms and industry, who have
agreed to standards to counter disinformation and its harmful impacts in the EU.
Existing signatories of the code include major online platforms – Facebook, Google,
Twitter, Microsoft and TikTok – as well as trade associations from the online advertising
sector.
In line with our 2020 European Democracy Action Plan, the Commission published its
Guidance in May 2021 (Setting out its views on how the Code should be strengthened).
The Code’s signatories and potential new signatories are currently carrying out a
thorough revision and strengthening of the Code. More than two dozen new
organisations from industry and civil society are participating in the revision, and intend
to become signatories to the revised Code.
Ongoing
decision
-making
process
Art 4(3)
first
subpara
graph
5
Facebook’s position on the DSA and DMA
DSA
• In an interview in Le Monde
1 in Q1 2021,
noted that Facebook is
largely in
agreement with the objectives pursued by the
Digital Services Act, which seem
sensible.
o Facebook noted that the text of the DSA seems to be wel reflected and
supported the transparency related obligations, in particular in relation to
content moderation.
• In response to the Irish Government’s call for views on the Digital Services Act in
January 2021, Facebook further added on the DSA that
2:
o It welcomed that harmful content was not equated to il egal content and that
harmful content was included in the DSA through co-regulation, risk assessments
and mitigation measures. At the same time, it highlighted that these
provisions
were quite broad and that there should be more clarity about the trigger for
sanctions.
o It noted that the
compliance burden for very large online platforms was very
significant.
o It highlighted that the
restrictions on personalized algorithms needed to be
carefully considered as such restrictions would directly
impact the quality of the
service and negatively impact the user experience.
o It noted its concern on the role of the European Commission in the enforcement
of the DSA. According to Facebook, the Commission has
disproportionate
powers and these powers do
not have appropriate safeguards. In addition,
Facebook highlighted that there was uncertainty around the role of the Digital
Services Coordinator and other competent authorities.
DMA
•
Ongoing decision-
making process
Art 4(3) first
subparagraph
and commercial
interests Art 4(2)
first indent
1 https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2021/01/23/facebook-sur-la-moderation-on-nous-reproche-
une-chose-et-son-contraire 6067357 4408996.html.
2 Facebook-DSA-Submission.pdf (enterprise.gov.ie)
6
