VICE PRESIDENT VĚRA JOUROVÁ
META PLATFORMS
LOCATION: BERL 11/154
DATE AND TIME: 19 MAY 2022 AT 11H00 – 12H00
MEMBER RESPONSIBLE: DANIEL BRAUN
Contents
Steering brief .. ................. ....... .................... .... .................................... ....... ............................ ....... 3
Background and defensives ........................ ....... ......................... ....... ............................ ....... ...... 10
Support to Ukrainian and independent Russian media ........ ....... .................... ....... .............. 10
Code of practice . . ....... ............................ ....... ......................... ....... .................................... ...... 15
Privacy shield 2 .. . .................... ....... ............................ ....... ................................. ....... .............. 17
International Data Flows .......................... ....... ............................ .... .................................... .... . 20
Better internet for kids ...................... ....... .................... ....... ......................... ....... ............. ........ 23
Media freedom act ............... .... .................................... ....... ............................ .... ...................... 27
CV . ....... .................... ....... .................... ....... .................................... .... .................................... .... . 32
STEERING BRIEF
Scene setter
You are meeting
Meta
Platforms. The proposed topics of discussion are:
Work of Meta to support/give visibility to Ukrainian media and independent Russian
media.
Code of Practice on disinformation. (You can expect
to signal difficulties
endorsing the commitments through Facebook lawyers and a call for the Code to be
flexible.)
Privacy shield 2 and international data flows.
Better internet for kids. Meta floated the idea of a code for children in a previous
meeting with Renate and Daniel.
The proposal for a European Media Freedom Act: Meta contributed to the public
consultation.
To be noted:
).
Key messages
Fight against propaganda and support to media freedom
In the context of the war, we have stepped up efforts to fight
Russian war propaganda and support trustworthy information.
So we push for less space for disinformation and more space for
information.
This goes hand and hand.
i.
On support to Ukrainian and independent Russian
media
When it comes to media, our first priority is the safety of journalists
in Ukraine. This is why the EU has already dedicated more than 6
million euros for emergency support for journalists in Ukraine,
including protective equipment, training, and also relocation when
necessary.
We are working with various partners, including Deutsche Welle,
Reporters without Borders, the European Endowment for
Democracy (EED).
We also welcome that the European Broadcasting Union is
supporting their Ukrainian member, organises a lot of solidarity
initiatives and content in Ukrainian for refugees.
EEAS provides support to Ukraine with shaping and promoting
narratives and communication content. The Ukrainian Centre for
Strategic Communication receives EUR 1 million over 18 months
via the Foreign Policy Instrument. EEAS (East Stratcom Task
Force) assists with project design and management as well as needs
assessment.
EEAS contributes to the design of several media development
projects run by the Support Group for Ukraine and EUDEL in Kyiv
(notably Media4Democracy). These projects are currently re-
purposed to meet emergency needs.
We also need trustworthy information in Russian. I had the
opportunity to meet independent, investigative Russian journalists
in Riga last week.
They need to able to continue their investigative work. I am in
contact with colleagues in charge when it comes to visa and work
permits. They also need channels to reach Russian people.
Anything you can do to support the visibility and distribution of
trustworthy information, in particular in Ukrainian and
Russian, is welcome.
ii.
On Russian state propaganda
Around the world, Russia (and China) are driving a damaging
disinformation campaign blaming the Western sanctions for the
deteriorating global food security situation, rising energy prices and
increasing inflation.
In the EU, we are more aware now when it comes to disinformation,
we have sanctions in place and new sanctions will come. But we see
now Russia clearly targeting other continents, in particular Africa.
We must make it crystal-clear together in international fora and with
like-minded multilateral and bilateral partners that the sole
responsibility lays with Putin’s regime and its unprovoked decision
to invade Ukraine.
The EU is further working on the support of collection and storage
of evidence of war crimes, and determined to prevent any
manipulation of information to hide/discredit the investigation of
war crimes, like the atrocities in the town of Bucha. Russia must be
held accountable for these blatant violations and war crimes.
I appreciate your efforts, the good initial implementation of the
sanctions on RT and Sputnik, the labelling of or the increased
cooperation with fact-checkers.
It is important to diligently enforce your terms and conditions,
as well as the sanctions and their possible circumvention by
Russian-state affiliated accounts. Do you see gaps in
implementing rules or in the effectiveness of your policies in
this regard? We are seeing more and more worrying signals
that the engagement with the content of RT and Sputnik is
almost back to normal.
On the revision of the Code of Practice
The war in Ukraine shows the importance that platforms deliver
a strong revised Code of Practice on Disinformation as soon as
possible.
I appreciate Meta’s engagement in strengthening the Code.
The Commission counts on Meta’s strong commitment to
deliver a strong Code on time, and to sign up, as Meta, to all
commitments and measures for all of its services (with
Whatsapp and Messenger – their coverage is important and
appreciated!).
So far, the provisional chapters look promising, though we still
need to see some improvements and clearer language.
I have high expectations from Facebook in particular regarding
coverage and capacities across all languages, the commitment
on enabling the use of trustworthiness indicators, and access to
data.
The commitments should also include one on political
advertising on messaging services (Guidance: “when sponsored
political content is shared between users, it should continue to be
labelled as paid-for content”).
And we expect the Code to come with strong key performance
indicators, allowing the Commission and the public to monitor
whether the signatories have lived up to their commitments.
On Privacy shield 2
On 25 March 2022, President von der Leyen and President
Biden announced an agreement in principle for a new
transatlantic data transfer framework to replace the Privacy
Shield.
We are now working on the details to translate the agreement in
principle into legal texts.
To adopt the final decision, we will need to go through a multi-
step process that involves an opinion from the European Data
Protection Board (EDPB), a vote of our Member States and
scrutiny by the European Parliament.
Because of the work that remains to be done and the different
procedural steps we need to go through, it is difficult to give a
precise timeline at this stage.
On international data flows
International data flows are indispensable for the growth of the
European and global data economy. That is why the EU will
remain open to all actors that comply with European rules and
values. Ultimately, this raises trust and contributes to making
Europe the most attractive place in the world to store and
process data.
Our legislative proposals (the data governance act, and the data
act) are fully in line with EU’s international commitments and
obligations (WTO, FTA). We want that protection afforded to
data held in the EU actually travels with the data when it is
transferred outside the EU.
But we also have to make sure that companies offering digital
products and services to European citizens respect EU laws. EU
is doing some things as the first in the world (DSA, DMA, AI
act). We do it to address the risks stemming from the
digitalisation. Simply, digital rules have to respect EU
democratic values. I would hope that by now Facebook will be
a constructive player.
On Better internet for kids (BIK) - age verification
The new strategy for a better internet for kids (BIK+) reflects
the recently proposed digital principle that ‘Children and young
people should be protected and empowered online’.
The updated BIK+ Strategy addresses age-verification
mechanisms, in particular a European technical standard, to
support methods and technologies to prove age in a privacy-
preserving and secure manner, to be recognised EU-wide;
We welcome Meta’s efforts to make age verification mandatory
in your apps and your work with the EU funded euCONSENT
Consortium to help develop an EU-wide infrastructure for
effective online age verification and parental consent, going
beyond self-declaration.
We look forward to working with Meta on our code.
On legislation to detect, report and remove child sexual abuse
online
The Commission welcomes the fact that Meta has traditionally
been a global leader when it comes to identifying and removing
child sexual abuse on its services.
The proposal for a Regulation on preventing and combating
child sexual abuse will bring the needed legal clarity for Meta
and other internet service providers to continue and enhance the
fight against child sexual abuse online.
The proposed rules will put all the service providers under its
scope under the same obligations to detect, report and remove
child sexual abuse material on their services.
On the European media freedom act (EMFA)
At the start of this mandate, we decided to look at the situation
of media freedom and pluralism in all Member States as part of
our annual rule of law report.
This helped us design our European Democracy Action Plan. It
includes a series of measures to strengthen media freedom and
pluralism, along with the protection of elections and the fight
against disinformation.
The next step is a proposal for a European media freedom act. It
is of course a matter of protecting our values, but also our
single market, as we see that threats to media freedom and
pluralism are also threats to the single market. The single
market is affected by the fragmentation of national rules related
to media, decisions targeting actors based in other Member
and so on.
We are looking at a common series of principles, such as the
editorial independence of the media and the transparency of
ownership. This would apply to all media, not only audiovisual
media.
Our internal work is well underway. I thank you for your
contribution to the public consultation where you describe your
approach regarding news content
.
We ask platforms to pay specific attention to media freedom
and pluralism, this is in the DSA. We are analysing how we can
build on this in the EMFA, but there is no final decision. One
area we are looking at for example is the transparency of
audience measurement. This is important for the media sector
to get reliable data on the audience they reach online, especially
when it comes to advertising. But let me be clear there is no
intention to come up with a “media exemption”.
CODE OF PRACTICE
The strengthened Code of practice aim is, to be fit for becoming part of the co-
regulatory instrument foreseen in the Digital Services Act (DSA) to address
disinformation on online platforms in the EU. In particular:
Coverage of messaging apps. The revised Code needs to feature strong
commitments on messaging apps. We are pleased that Meta – as the only
signatory so far – took this issue forward. We believe that the latest text goes in
the right direction and look forward to finalising the work with your
representatives.
Access to data. One of the critical aims of the strengthening of the Code is to
guarantee access to data for purposes of the research on disinformation. Effective
access requires close cooperation between the platforms, the research community
and the civil society. We urge Meta to ensure rapid implementation of the
framework being developed by the European Digital Media Observatory in
cooperation with the platforms, including Meta.
Trustworthiness indicators: We are pleased to see that the draft of the revised
Code’s user empowerment chapter features both a comprehensive commitment
and measure on the use of trustworthiness indicators in signatories’ services. We
strongly encourage Meta to sign up to these provisions and offer users access to
such indicators, supporting their informed navigation of your services.
Political ads: We appreciate the constructive and quick manner in which the
political ads chapter has been developed. We count on Meta’s continued
commitment in finalising the work on this core aspect of the Code.
Strong key performance indicators for monitoring the Code: We expect the
Code to come with strong key performance indicators, allowing the Commission
and the public to monitor whether the signatories have lived up to their
commitments. A difficult discussion herein lies in the disclosure of human and
financial resources committed by platforms to fight disinformation. We strongly
encourage Meta to explore ways how such data could be collected and disclosed.
Defensives
What is the Commission’s role in the drafting process?
The drafting of the Code of Practice belongs to the signatories. The Commission’s
role in the ongoing revision process is to ensure a robust instrument, in line with the
Guidance.
In short, the Commission’s role is to make sure that the Guidance is respected but it
is for signatories to discuss and agree on operational commitments that are relevant
for their services.
What does the Commission expect from Meta following the adoption of the Code?
The revised Code will set out the actions to take in a range of areas, from
demonetising misinformation, to stepping up efforts against manipulative behaviour,
to improving the ability of users to understand and report misinformation, as well as
to increasing cooperation with the community of fact checkers, researchers and civil
society organisations.
Following its adoption, the reinforced Code will have to be implemented quickly, in
a uniform way in all Member States and in all languages.
The final text will set forth a timeline for implementation. We encourage Meta to
develop key elements of the Code, in particular related to the access to data and the
disclosure of service level indicators as soon as possible, ideally even before the end
of the implementation period.
What will be the role for European regulators?
We intend to continue to rely on the expertise of European media regulators in this
regard. The European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA)
published recommendations (October 2021) following its own assessment of the
implementation of the current Code and the COVID-19 monitoring programme.
These recommendations touch on issues that are at the heart of the Commission's
expectations and of the ongoing work to strengthen the code.
The Commission will also rely on expert advice and support from ERGA as we
assess progress in implementing the new Code. ERGA will also be part of a
permanent task force aimed at developing and adapting the Code according to
technological, societal and legislative developments.
PRIVACY SHIELD 2
Meta has been very vocal about the ongoing investigation of the Irish data protection
authority, including by claiming that it will no longer be able to offer its services in
Europe if the Irish Data Protection Authority (DPA) prohibits data transfers to the US
which by some commentators and media has been interpreted as ”threatening” to leave
the European market. For example, in a recent annual report (that Meta is required to
publish under US law), Meta mentioned that “If a new transatlantic data transfer
framework is not adopted and we are unable to continue to rely on Standard
Contractual Clauses (SCCs) or rely upon other alternative means of data transfers from
Europe to the United States, we will likely be unable to offer a number of our most
significant products and services, including Facebook and Instagram, in Europe, which
would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of
operations”. While Meta subsequently indicated in public statements (and a letter
addressed to the Commission) that it has no plans to withdraw from Europe and
includes such standard language in previous annual reports,
On 25 March 2022, the EU and US announced an agreement in principle on a new
Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework. Like the Privacy Shield, this new framework
will take the form of a Commission adequacy decision, on the basis of which personal
data could flow freely from the EU to participating companies in the US. While there is
an agreement in principle, the two sides will now need to translate it into legal texts. In
particular, the US commitments will be included in an Executive Order that will form
the basis of the Commission’s assessment in its future adequacy decision.
Background
Negotiations on a Privacy Shield successor
The agreement in principle with the US for a new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy
Framework to replace the EU-US Privacy Shield (that was invalidated by the Court of
Justice in July 2020 in its Schrems II judgment, C-311/18). Like the Privacy Shield, this
new framework will take the form of a Commission adequacy decision, on the basis
of which personal data could flow freely from the EU to participating companies in the
US.
The future arrangement will provide for:
The details of this agreement in principle need now to be translated into legal texts. In
particular, the US commitments will need to be reflected in a new Executive Order
to be adopted by the US President,
.
Once this new Executive Order and other relevant acts will be in place, the
Commission will be able to propose a draft adequacy decision and launch the
adoption procedure for the final adequacy decision. The first formal step of the
decision-making process is obtaining an opinion of the EDPB. Second, the
Commission will need to obtain the green light from the Member States in the
comitology procedure. Finally, the European Parliament has a right of scrutiny over
adequacy decisions.
Ongoing procedures in Ireland following the Schrems II judgment
The Schrems II case was based on a complaint of Austrian privacy activist Max
Schrems before the Irish DPA (Data Protection Commission, or DPC) about data
transfers by Facebook Ireland to its headquarters in the US on the basis of SCCs.
Now that the Court of Justice has issued its judgment, it is for the DPC to apply the
clarifications provided by the Court in this specific case. This means that the DPC
will have to decide whether Facebook can continue to transfer data to the US on the
basis of SCCs.
Facebook initiated legal proceedings against the DPC before the Irish High Court on
procedural grounds, after the DPC issued a preliminary order to Facebook in fall 2020
to suspend its data transfers to the US. While this was only an intermediary step as part
of the ongoing investigation, Facebook claimed, in particular, that it did not receive
sufficient time to present its views. In May 2021, the Irish High Court dismissed
Facebook’s claim.
Post-Schrems II actions of other data protection authorities
In the past months, we have started to see the first “post-Schrems II” cases, e.g. the
suspension by the Portuguese DPA of the transfer of census data from a Portuguese
public authority to the US, cases before the Belgian and French Councils of State
(insisting on the importance of specific protections, such as encryption).
These cases were triggered by complaints from
None of Your Business, the non-profit organisation headed by
.
the Austrian DPA issued the first
enforcement decision in January, concluding that the transfers to the US operated in
the context of the use of Google Analytics are unlawful. This decision was followed by
a similar one from the French DPA in February and it is expected that others will
follow in the coming weeks/months.
Certain DPAs have also started to issue specific guidance on the Schrems II
judgment. Companies have for instance criticised recent guidance from the Berlin DPA,
where it advises companies to switch to providers (referring in particular to cloud
service providers) in the EU or countries benefiting from an adequacy decision, and to
move personal data stored in the US back to the EU.
INTERNATIONAL DATA FLOWS
Launched in February 2020, the European Data Strategy describes the vision to create
a genuine internal market for data, where data flows freely across sectors and
countries, in line with European rules and values, and data-driven innovation is
embraced by society.
The proposal for a data act, adopted on 23 February 2022, is the second horizontal
legislative initiative implementing the European strategy for data. It will set horizontal
rules for access to and use of data to boost a fair data economy.
Following the Council's approval on 16 May of the European Parliament's position, the
data governance act was adopted. The ceremonial signature by the co-legislators in
Strasbourg will possibly take place in June. The legislative act will then be published in
the Official Journal and enter into force 20 days after publication. The new rules will
apply 15 months thereafter.
Meta has not explained its position on either the data act or the data governance act at
any stage of the legislative adoption process (feedback to the inception impact
assessment or online public consultation).
In their position paper on the 2020 EU Data Strategy, Meta highlighted that the data
centre and cloud computing industry’s self-regulation ensured sufficient security,
availability and resilience. Meta was positive on data portability but noted that there
were unresolved data protection challenges.
The Commission will maintain its open, yet assertive approach regarding international
data flows, as announced in the European data strategy of February 2020.
This is not just about increasing data flows, but also about doing it in a responsible and
sustainable way. Ethical collection, processing and use of data is critical to ensuring
trust in the data ecosystem. This is at the heart of the “European way of handling
data”.
Defensives
Is there an inherent contradiction between “data sovereignty” and data localisation
and the "push for the free flow of data in the digital world", both of which are
simultaneously promoted by the EU in various contexts?
No. Sovereignty in strategic areas means that the EU must be able to define its own
rules, make autonomous technological choices, and develop and deploy strategic
digital infrastructures. However, the EU will remain open to all businesses that
comply with European rules and standards.
Specifically for data, the data strategy presents data governance “in the European
way”, which will guarantee that individuals and companies keep control over their
data, thus guaranteeing an increased level of data sovereignty in Europe.
Thanks to the European data strategy of February 2020, more data will be available
for the EU economy and society, while individuals and businesses will retain full
control over the data they generate.
Is the EU creating data localisation measures?
No. We have repeatedly confirmed the Commission’s commitment to facilitate data
flows. The Commission understands the economic importance of international data
flows and firmly believes that ensuring a high level of data protection should go hand
in hand with a policy of facilitating such data flows.
To allow secure and trusted international flows of personal data, there is a sound
legal framework under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), working on
the basis of adequacy decisions, standard contractual clauses and binding corporate
rules. Its implementation is assessed on a case-by-case basis.
In line with this, the measures dealing with international access and transfer in the
data governance act and the data act add a layer of legal certainty, insofar they take a
uniform approach to the protection of non-personal data held in Europe against
unlawful access by non-EU governmental authorities, in complement to the measures
that the GDPR imposes for personal data.
There is no imposition of any data localisation requirements whatsoever, nor
limitations on companies to transfer non-personal data internationally.
Are the international provisions of the data act similar to a Schrems II for industrial
data?
Yes, we have already proposed such provisions in the data governance act for which
we have a political agreement by the co-legislator. The data act would extend these
provisions to cloud and edge services.
These rules are similar to Schrems II in the sense that their aim is to shield non-
personal, industrial data held in Europe from unlawful access and transfer requests
coming from third countries.
These rules are different from Schrems II in the sense that they also impose
requirements on cloud service providers active in Europe and apply mainly to
governmental access requests.
When a cloud customer voluntarily transfers the data outside the EU, the
international provisions of the data act would not apply.
The provisions are thus not impacting on economically important international flows
of non-personal data.
With this, we complement the rules for personal data with rules for non-personal
data, which have a different intensity and scope of application. These provisions will
make cloud services in Europe more secure and trustworthy, while not affecting who
can offer those services on the EU market.
Background
Overview of the data act
The data act encompasses the following issues:
Better access to Internet of Things (IoT) data:
manufacturer of IoT objects needs to allow access and can continue to use the
data;
users of IoT objects can access and port data;
3rd parties can use the data to offer services (Small and medium sized enterprises
(SMEs) get special conditions).
horizontal rules for IoT data also frame data access and use in other sectors to
converge the patchwork of existing legislation ;
tackle contractual unfairness in business to business data sharing agreements,
where unilaterally imposed on SMEs;
business-to-government data sharing: Companies must make data available to
public sector bodies in case of emergencies and other exceptional needs
easier switching between cloud services;
facilitate interoperability: COM may adopt technical specifications if necessary to
reduce transaction costs related to the use of data even across sectors;
protection of cloud data held in Europe from unlawful non-EU governmental access.
Overview of the data governance act
The proposal for a data governance act was adopted on 25 November 2020. It will
increase trust in data sharing by regulating organisations that bring the supply and
demand of data together. It is a key building block for the creation of “common
European data spaces” by regulating the orchestrators of these data spaces.
The data governance act builds entirely on existing legislation on who can use what
data, in particular GDPR. It thus aims to support voluntary sharing.
It has four intervention areas:
Re-use of public sector information that is sensitive because it contains personal
data or commercially confidential information.
Fostering the emergence of new data sharing intermediaries. Such intermediaries
would be services that companies and individuals can use in order to “monetise” data
about them.
Data altruism. The proposal makes it possible for not-for-profit organisations to
registers as data altruism organisations. This should bring trust in such novel players
and make it possible to establish data pools based on voluntary contributions by
individuals and companies at scale.
Governance on standardisation. The data governance act proposes to set in place a
European Data Innovation Board in order to better steer standardisation and ensure
interoperability between different data spaces.
BETTER INTERNET FOR KIDS
Meta has traditionally been a global leader when it comes to identifying and removing
child sexual abuse on its services. 95% of global reports originate from Meta, with
more than two-thirds of that stemming from Facebook Messenger. Meta intermittently
stopped detecting child sexual abuse in Facebook Messenger in 2021 because of
concerns about the legal situation brought about by the EU electronic communications
code, which led to a drop of more than half of global reports. They have since resumed
scanning.
Meta wishes to reinforce efforts towards the common goal of protecting and promoting
children’s rights online. In July 2021, they announced their plans to make age
verification mandatory. Meta uses artificial intelligence (AI) backed systems to detect
the accurate age of its users, like through birthday wishes, or age used in apps linked to
Facebook.
Instagram made it mandatory for all users to share date of birth to use the app. In case
someone tries to provide false date of birth details, Instagram’s AI algorithms will scan
for the data on the account and verify whether it is correct or wrong.
Defensives
How will the BIK+ address age verification?
EU laws - in particular the AVMSD and the GDPR - are in place and technical
solutions to check age exist. Nevertheless, in practice age-verification mechanisms
are mostly ineffective, and users often only need to enter a birth date to register.
Under BIK+, the Commission will work towards a European standard on age
verification. This type of standard will clarify what is expected from industry when
age verification is required on any online tools and services. Such recognised
methods would be used by pornography websites, for example, to ensure their users
are aged 18 or over.
In parallel, the Commission will explore how to use the planned European Digital
Identity Wallet for age verification. The Commission will work with Member States
and encourage them to issue electronic IDs to the under-18s to strengthen effective
age verification methods.
This would lead to an EU-wide recognised proof of age based on date of birth in in a
privacy-preserving and secure manner.
Who will the new rules on detecting, reporting and removing child sexual abuse
material online apply to?
The proposed rules will apply to online service providers offering services in the EU,
namely hosting services and interpersonal communication services (such as
messaging services), app stores and internet access providers.
What material is covered under the proposal?
The detection obligations cover known material (re-uploaded photos and videos that
have been previously identified as child sexual abuse material), new material (photos
and videos not previously identified), and grooming. The identification of grooming
only concerns interpersonal communications where it is known that one of the users
is a child.
What about the use of encryption technology when detecting child sexual abuse
material?
As indicated, the proposal is technologically neutral and is an obligation of results.
This includes the use of encryption technology. A large portion of reports of child
sexual abuse, which are instrumental to starting investigations and rescuing children,
come from services that are already encrypted or may become encrypted in the
future. If such services were to be exempt from requirements to protect children and
to take action against the circulation of child sexual abuse images and videos via
their services, the consequences would be severe for children.
Background
The Better Internet for Kids (BIK+) Strategy
The new European strategy for a better internet for kids (BIK+) is an update of the
previous BIK strategy from 2012. The update replies to the challenges and opportunities
of the vastly changed digital environment and digital transformation of the society,
further accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Commission’s first comprehensive
Strategy on the Rights of the Child from 2021 also called for an update of the strategy.
The strategy, one of the flagship actions of the European Year of Youth 2022, is built on
three pillars:
safe digital experiences to protect children from harmful and illegal online content,
conduct, contact and consumer risks and to improve their well-being online through a
safe, age-appropriate digital environment, created in a way that respects children’s
best interests;
digital empowerment so children acquire the necessary skills and competences to
make sound choices and express themselves in the online environment safely and
responsibly;
active participation, respecting children by giving them a say in the digital
environment, with more child-led activities to foster innovative and creative safe
digital experiences.
Legislation to detect, report and remove child sexual abuse online
The proposal, announced in the EU Strategy for a more effective fight against child
sexual abuse has been adopted on 11 May 2022.
The initiative builds on and complement existing policy instruments in the fight against
child sexual abuse, addressing gaps in the current legislative framework. Horizontal
instruments such as the eCommerce Directive or the DSA address some of the problems
and challenges of keeping children safe online but provide only limited and partial
solutions and do not offer the possibility to put in place comprehensive and targeted
measures. Sectoral instruments (such as the CSA Directive, the Europol Regulation, the
interim Regulation or the ePrivacy Directive) are not able to provide a comprehensive
EU-level solution to combat online child sexual abuse and sexual exploitation as they
focus on particular aspects of the problem, such as harmonisation of criminal laws,
improving police investigations, exchanging or processing of personal data and the
protection of privacy. None of these instruments define the role of the service providers
specifically enough to provide them with legal certainty on their powers and do not
foresee effective obligations for the providers relevant in the fight against child sexual
abuse.
The new proposal includes obligations for companies to detect and report known
child sexual abuse material to public authorities. This step is necessary, as
voluntary action has proven insufficient: willingness to engage in the fight against
child sexual abuse and the effectiveness of such efforts varies greatly from
company to company, and current action lacks harmonised safeguards, including
transparency. This may interfere with users’ rights, including those of privacy and
data protection.
European Centre to prevent and counter child sexual abuse
The new proposal also defines the role of the EU Centre to prevent and combat child
sexual abuse. The need of an EU Centre, established in the EU and operating according
to EU rules, featured prominently in negotiations of the interim derogation from the
ePrivacy Directive as agreed in April 2021.
The centre as currently envisaged could have three major roles: support efforts on
prevention, improve assistance to victims, support detection, reporting and removal of
CSA online.
The detection and reporting role is key given the international cooperation dimension.
In this regard an EU Centre could:
eliminate the need for international transfers of personal data of EU citizens;
support detection by, for example, maintaining a database of child sexual abuse
hashes to reliably enable detection of child sexual abuse as defined by EU rules,
rather than rely on what is criminalised under US law as is currently the case.
It will also function as an important safeguard, as a source of information on what is
defined as child sexual abuse according to EU rules, ensure visibility on the
effectiveness of detection measures, and transparency and accountability of the process.
The centre would serve as an expert hub for all aspects of prevention and victim
support, and engage with counterparts such as NCMEC in the US, the Australian Centre
to Counter Child Exploitation, and the Canadian Centre for Child Protection.
Data on grooming
Reports concerning grooming increased from 37 872 in 2020 to 44 155 in 2021, and the
age of children falling victim to sexual abuse continues to decrease. On average, the
first exposure to sexually-explicit content online happens at 12 years. The Internet
Watch Foundation (IWF) noted a three-fold increase in imagery showing 7-10 year olds
who have been targeted and groomed by predators online.
According to the WPGA-Global Threat Assessment 2021, veiled or hidden use of
typical grooming or child sexual abuse material (CSAM) terms in gaming has grown
over 13% 2019-2020. This resulted in the further discovery of 50% additional harmful
content.
Europol’s 2021 Internet Organised Threat Assessment (IOACT) shows that there has
been a steep increase in online grooming activities on social media and online gaming
platforms.
In May 2021, Save the Children Finland published a report which provides new data on
online grooming. According to the report, 62% of children - respondents had been
contacted online by a person they knew or suspected to be an adult or at least five years
older than them.
Background
META position on EMFA
META didn’t fill in the public consultation on the EMFA, but they sent a response to
the EMFA Call for Evidence (below):
Meta’s mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer
together. People use Facebook and Instagram to stay connected with friends and family, to
discover what's going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them. At Meta,
we recognise we have a role to play in ensuring that our users connect with official sources in
reducing misinformation and in building community and connection between people in difficult
times. We look forward to engaging with the European Commission as it evaluates the best
possible way for the EMFA proposal.
META’s approach to news content
META’s core mission is to connect users with friends and family and to help them find quality
content. A user’s Feed primarily contains relevant posts from family and friends as well as
posts that reflect user interests.
News is only a small part of the content on Facebook- around 4% of the content on Feed. We’re
also one part of a much larger supply chain when it comes to news. We are just one part of a
very big supply chain when it comes to news. Social media is just one small element of a much
larger ecosystem.
The digitisation of news has led to increased choice, diversity, access and engagement. There
are many new opportunities for new entrants and established operators to innovate and reach
audiences that were previously inaccessible or hard to reach. These developments offer to our
users:
Choice and Diversity
increased access to a wider range of news sources, domestic and international;
emergence of new digital publications tailored to the needs of underserved
communities;
facilitation of access to news from multiple publishers.
Access
new opportunities to access news “on demand” rather than just at the evening news
broadcasts;
new opportunities to engage with news on a variety of devices including laptops,
tablets, desktops, and mobile phones.
Engagement
new opportunities to engage with news publishers and journalists themselves, and share
and discuss news content on social media;
new opportunities to create a personalised and/or curated stream of news content.
At Meta we are determined to help build a more informed community. We have invested in
products, programs and partnerships that drive value for news providers to ensure that the
people who are using Facebook to discover what is going on in the world find news sources that
further educate and engage them.
Facebook allows all publishers of all sizes to reach and engage with new audiences while
providing analytical tools to better understand their audiences and how they engage with news
links. We also provide various monetisation tools that allow publishers to build their businesses.
Many established media operators use Facebook as a free means to reach an existing audience
or an audience that they may previously not have had access to, and to monetise their content in
new and innovative ways. Reduced cost of distribution enables more journalists and publishers
to create and distribute content to more people—and do it faster and more easily.
Monetisation and distribution
The Facebook platform allows news publishers to publish, distribute, monetise and interact with
viewers of their content at no cost to publishers and consistent with their publishing
preferences, via Facebook’s business tools. Notably, publishers typically do not place entire
articles on Facebook, but rather preview text to attract readers and a link back to the
publisher’s site. This enables publishers to direct users to their websites where publishers can
serve their own ad experience directly to those users and monetise the traffic provided by
Facebook. It also enables publishers to generate reader revenue through subscriptions and
other engagements with their customers, on their terms. Referral traffic totals from Facebook to
news publishers vary with the news cycle.
As an opt-in platform, publishers choose to place their content directly on Facebook via their
Facebook Pages. This opportunity exists for all businesses that wish to publish their content on
Facebook, and is subject to complying with the Facebook terms of service.
Facebook has built its services to respect the decisions of publishers on monetisation and data
flow of their own content. Facebook doesn’t require publishers to change their applicable
paywall policies, or dictate to them what happens once a user clicks on a link and is taken to the
publisher’s website to read the article. For publishers who do not operate paywalls, they are
able to monetise their content on Facebook through advertising and other methods outlined in
the next section below. Publishers can remove any content that they previously posted on the
Facebook platform at any time. If publishers no longer want to enable other features such as the
Like or Share plugins on their websites and apps, or to use Instant Articles, they are free to
disable their participation. To protect publisher content, we have tools such as the Rights
Manager and Facebook’s reporting tools which enable publishers to flag IP violations and any
infringing content anywhere on our platform can be removed. For non-infringing news content,
Facebook honours publishers’ choices about whether to allow third parties to render news
content, as expressed by the publisher's use of generally established coding tools, such as meta
tags.
Facebook’s customised commercialisation products and innovations incorporate feedback from
the news industry. Our custom-built publisher tools are designed to help news organisations
build and understand their audiences, as well as drive additional revenue to them, which we
think is the best way we can help them build sustainable business models for the future.
These are different and separate from our advertising tools. The types of tools we provide are:
Tools like CrowdTangle give publishers data and insights into audiences in markets where
newsrooms are still developing skills and tools to understand digital audiences.
Publishers can use Instream Video, Instant Articles, and subscription offerings to monetise their
content -- turning readers on Facebook into payers subscribers, where they can then keep that
new revenue.
Products like Live, Groups, and the breaking news tag can create new audience engagement
and communities based on feedback directly from the industry
The tools and data we provide to help gather insights on the performance of posts and
advertising campaigns are also particularly valuable in helping small and emerging publishers
who are in greatest need of support and who benefit most from being able to reach new
audiences.
Facebook News
In Germany and France, we have also entered into commercial deals with publishers for new
content. By launching Facebook News, we created a dedicated news surfaces. In doing so, Meta
has entered into commercial deals for net new content links with a wide range of diverse
publishers, including international, national, and local publishers, to feature on this unique new
surface. The product - which was shaped by publishers and people who requested a specific
destination inside Facebook for news - is a multi-year investment that puts original journalism
in front of new audiences as well as providing publishers with more advertising and
subscription opportunities to help build a sustainable business for the future. Facebook News
does not contain any advertising and Meta does not have any direct revenues from this surface.
Users may also discover video news content on Facebook Watch, a dedicated surface for video
content. Facebook Watch provides another surface on which publishers can freely distribute
content as the news content on Facebook Watch is drawn from content already posted by news
publishers on their Page. Facebook has entered into commercial deals with some publishers to
produce high-quality video content specifically for Facebook Watch.
Meta’s approach to misinformation
We use a three-part strategy with regards to combating misinformation: we remove
misinformation likely to contribute to the risk of imminent harm or interference with political
processes, we reduce the distribution of content which independent fact checking organisations
determine to be false or altered, and we inform people so they can decide what to read, trust
and share. We have recently published additional transparency on our approach to combating
misinformation in our Community Standards.
We remove misinformation where it is likely to directly contribute to the risk of imminent
physical harm. We also remove content that is likely to directly contribute to interference with
the functioning of political processes and certain highly deceptive manipulated media. In
determining what constitutes misinformation in these categories, we partner with independent
experts who possess knowledge and expertise to assess the truth of the content and whether it is
likely to directly contribute to the risk of imminent harm. This includes, for instance, partnering
with human rights organisations with a presence on the ground in a country to determine the
truth of a rumour about civil conflict, and partnering with health organisations during the
global COVID-19 pandemic.
For all other misinformation, we focus on reducing its prevalence or creating an environment
that fosters a productive dialogue. As part of that effort, we partner with third-party fact-
checking organisations to review and rate the accuracy of the most viral content on our
platforms. We currently work with our growing network of independent third party fact-
checking partners. We partner with over 80 fact-checking organisations around the world,
covering over 60 languages. In the EU and greater Europe, we partner with 37 fact-checking
organisations, covering 33 languages. We also provide resources to increase media and digital
literacy so people can decide what to read, trust and share themselves.
State media labelling
We are currently restricting access to RT and Sputnik across the EU given the exceptional
circumstances of the war in Ukraine. But already in July 2020 we have begun implementing our
policy on state controlled media to help people better understand who’s behind the news they
see on Facebook and label media outlets that are wholly or partially under the editorial control
of their government. Through this step we’re providing greater transparency into these
publishers because they combine the influence of a media organisation with the strategic
backing of a state, and we believe people should know if the news they read is coming from a
publication that may be under the influence of a government. We’re equally transparent when it
comes to paid content from these publishers, we are labelling ads from these publishers later
this year. To inform our policy criteria, we consulted more than 65 experts around the world
specialising in media, governance, and human rights and development. The input we received
from these organisations was crucial to understanding the different ways and degrees to which
governments exert editorial control over media entities. We know that governments continue to
use funding mechanisms to control the media, but this alone doesn’t tell the full story. That’s
why our definition of state-controlled media extends beyond just assessing financial control or
ownership and includes an assessment of editorial control exerted by a government.
