5 ms·

> At the heart of this case was the enforcement of a new legal provision under the DSA: the right to access research data (Article 40(12) DSA). This provision r

> At the heart of this case was the enforcement of a new legal provision under the DSA: the right to access research data (Article 40(12) DSA). This provision requires large online platforms to provide researchers with immediate access to publicly available data on their platforms in order to assess systemic risks. The lawsuit has also helped clarify open legal questions regarding the judicial enforceability of this right in Germany. [0] Why would anyone living in a democracy be against this? Also, maybe this linked article would be a better one that the one from Reuters. [0] https://democracy-reporting.org/en/office/EU/news/court-orders-x-to-allow-our-research-on-the-german-elections https://democracy-reporting.org/en/office/EU/news/court-orde...

aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
easytiger 2y ago
[flagged]
- qwertox 2y ago
  The scope is limited to electoral debates. It's in the interest of the citizens.
  - dmix 2y ago
    This is giving random researchers ("including those affiliated with non-profit bodies, organizations, and associations") "unrestricted access to all publicly available data on the platform immediately after elections" as long as they are doing something with some connection to the election? Doesn't sound very limited in scope... just timing. There's tons of nefarious uses for data like that which is why social media APIs usually have limitations on how broad you can go.
    - croemer 2y ago
      Twitter gave researches good access. Then came Musk and shut that down. I don't think he did that because he worried about nefarious uses.
    - lxgr 2y ago
      > which is why social media APIs usually have limitations on how broad you can go Without paying, usually.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > government has any right to data owned by a private company Another way to look at it is that the people have a right to the data.
  - atlantic 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - qwertox 2y ago
      Researches get access, they then publish their studies. The press picks up on these studies and interprets them for "the people", unless "the people" want to read the studies by themselves.
    - ok_dad 2y ago
      Don't do that, try and redirect the discussion using some dumb definition/semantics argument. This data is public data on posts that X locks behind a wall in order to force sign-ups and ad views. You and I both know the colloquial definition for "the people", it's literally the electorate of the state in question, in this case all the German citizens who are able to vote for the polticians who passed this public access law. This isn't the government trying to pry private company secrets from poor, downtrodden corporations, it's the government passing a law that public data from social media needs to be easy to access for researchers.
      - bloopernova 2y ago
        thank you The more people that call out derail and divide attempts, the better this site gets.
        standyro 2y ago
        unfortunately this site is just as prone to thought bubbles, media bias, and disinformation campaigns, just like X...
        ok_dad 2y ago
- cmdli 2y ago
  Researchers have exactly the same right to this data as X has to accessing the German market. If they want to make money, they play by the rules chosen by the people of that country. They are free to not sell their services if they don't like the deal offered.
  - easytiger 2y ago
    Which researchers, and why do they have such a "right"?
- layer8 2y ago
  This law is not about arbitrary companies, but about large social networks affecting millions of people. Requiring a certain transparency from these seems justified.
- oneplane 2y ago
  Because that is what is democratically voted for? If the people (or the representatives they voted for) say that society having access to that data is what society wants, then the company can either provide that data, or have it taken from them. There should not be a scenario where a company "beats" society.
  - jisnsm 2y ago
    Let’s not pretend anybody voted directly for this or was even aware of this law when they cast their vote.
    - wkat4242 2y ago
      No but we vote for people to do that on our behalf. And X is not just any company, it has high influence potential on society. And Musk has already openly tried to influence elections here.
    - computerthings 2y ago
      It's Americans having an issue with this, not Germans.
    - oneplane 2y ago
      DSA and DMA is widely known, but perhaps not by their acronyms or every individual rule. I don't know in what country you live, but this was not exactly some hidden issue, in almost all member states this was a local issue and had local news coverage as well. The only way someone would not have been aware is if they spent none of their time on any local or global reports. But in those cases, everything is going to be something they are unaware of and we'd be talking about people who are essentially disconnecting themselves from society. Everyone else would have heard about it multiple times since even local elections made a point of mentioning it, and election turnout is high, even if you don't participate yourself for some reason, it would be really hard to not have talked to anyone who did.
    - izacus 2y ago
      DMA is very popular among EU voters.
- mindslight 2y ago
  There are vanishingly few private companies of significant size. For example in the US most businesses with more than a few owners are government chartered corporations, LLCs, and the like. This gets them government granted liability shields, and so it makes sense for them to be proactively regulated to prevent causing foreseeable harm that they might otherwise escape responsibility for.
  - singleshot_ 2y ago
    Every once in a while, someone posts a revealing insight into exactly why Business Organizations should be taught outside law schools.
- singleshot_ 2y ago
  Is such data owned by the platform in EU?
shawnz 2y ago
One possible counterargument is that bad actors could use the data to improve their spamming or astroturfing methods.
- layer8 2y ago
  Security by obscurity?
  - shawnz 2y ago
    Not exactly: in the security space, we have better tools available than obscurity. But in the spam/abuse prevention space, obscurity is the best you can do.
- jajko 2y ago
  Counterargument it is, but its pretty weak considering benefits to free society
  - shawnz 2y ago
    I agree that this seems like a net positive to me overall.
- oneplane 2y ago
  If that is the case, having researchers perform analysis makes it possible to identify that risk and that is yet another reason to make sure that public data is not obscured. In a way, this research would either prove or disprove your theory.
- philjohn 2y ago
  I mean ... have you been on X recently? The bad actors don't need any help.
  - chihuahua 2y ago
    I think Elon is still working hard to get rid of the bots, just like OJ spent years looking for the real killer.
krick 2y ago
[flagged]
- drysine 2y ago
  >If it's publicly available, you don't need to provide any access to it, it's available. The data may be publicly available, but there may be anti-scraping measures.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- closewith 2y ago
  > Last, but probably the main thing that triggers me is that it "requires" somebody do some work for free. Why the fuck any company or person must do any work, that it doesn't deem necessary, to satisfy the curiosity of some "researchers"? In democratic countries, there are many instances where you are required to do work for free to remain in business. You have to maintain accounts, records, licenses, authorisations, inspections, etc, depending on your business. This is a necessary part of engaging with the State in which you operate.
- zimpenfish 2y ago
  > What is a large online platform? The text actually says "very large online platform" which is defined in 33(1): > This Section shall apply to online platforms and online search engines which have a number of average monthly active recipients of the service in the Union equal to or higher than 45 million, and which are designated as very large online platforms or very large online search engines pursuant to paragraph 4. Paragraph 4 just reiterates that. Paragraph 3 gives scope for adjustment: > In such a case, it shall adjust the number so that it corresponds to 10 % of the Union’s population in the year in which it adopts the delegated act, rounded up or down to allow the number to be expressed in millions. Basically "very large" -> 10% of the EU population. I'm not a lawyer, though; there may well be specific legal shenanigans going on but at first blush, it doesn't look like it.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
BrenBarn 2y ago
> Why would anyone living in a democracy be against this? It seems a sizable number of people living in democracies would rather be living in non-democracies.
ethbr1 2y ago
> systemic risks Is the key phrase here. Good to see the EU recognizing there are innocuous things that when scaled to X- or Facebook- size produce systemic risks. And if you want to be a platform that large, well, you owe additional societal responsibilities that your smaller competitors don't have to worry about (yet).
topspin 2y ago
> Why would anyone living in a democracy be against this? Because the language I'm reading here doesn't mean anything. "Researcher" can mean anything. In the US we see DOGE people rifling through government finance records, pipelining the data to the executive, for targeting of specific political interests. "Research" means whatever the present democratically elected regime wants it to mean. "Systemic risk" can mean anything. Last month in the US, millions of "undocumented" people were walking around relatively unconcerned. This month they're all a "systemic risk" and being actively hunted down for deportation or worse. Maybe tomorrow you become a "systemic risk," and whomever is in elected office at that time designates and funds some academics to "research" all your X/Facebook/Mastodon/whatever activity. There is a non-zero possibility in Germany that AfD will one day get to designate what "research" means and what the "systemic risks" are. How does that sound? So it's not the least bit difficult to understand why members of a supposed democracy might think this isn't a power "researchers" should have. It's only a problem for the naïve, who suppose the future is governed by only the right people.
- Hasu 2y ago
  The data is publicly available. Researchers could get it by scraping, this law says that companies must provide more convenient ways to access that public data. This has fuck all to do with government overreach or access to private data.
  - 8338550bff96 2y ago
    How convenient does the law say that it has to be?
    - cmdli 2y ago
      I don't know. Perhaps you could research it to found out?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
ekianjo 2y ago
> Why would anyone living in a democracy be against this? In normal democracies searching through records require a court order.
- viraptor 2y ago
  Through private/personal records. This is not the case here.
like_any_other 2y ago
> Why would anyone living in a democracy be against this? The limit to "researchers" and "systemic risk" opens the door to cherry-picking the results - use a microscope to find issues when elections don't go your way, turn a blind eye when they do. The law is good (far better than not having it), but should be expanded, making the data available to everyone.
floydnoel 2y ago
personally i think it is akin to slavery when compelling people to take certain behaviors. corporations aren't people, but i could see some people applying that argument in this case.

aaron695 2y ago

[dead]

easytiger 2y ago

[flagged]

qwertox 2y ago
The scope is limited to electoral debates. It's in the interest of the citizens.
- dmix 2y ago
  This is giving random researchers ("including those affiliated with non-profit bodies, organizations, and associations") "unrestricted access to all publicly available data on the platform immediately after elections" as long as they are doing something with some connection to the election? Doesn't sound very limited in scope... just timing. There's tons of nefarious uses for data like that which is why social media APIs usually have limitations on how broad you can go.
  - croemer 2y ago
    Twitter gave researches good access. Then came Musk and shut that down. I don't think he did that because he worried about nefarious uses.
  - lxgr 2y ago
    > which is why social media APIs usually have limitations on how broad you can go Without paying, usually.
mmooss 2y ago
> government has any right to data owned by a private company Another way to look at it is that the people have a right to the data.
- atlantic 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - qwertox 2y ago
    Researches get access, they then publish their studies. The press picks up on these studies and interprets them for "the people", unless "the people" want to read the studies by themselves.
  - ok_dad 2y ago
    Don't do that, try and redirect the discussion using some dumb definition/semantics argument. This data is public data on posts that X locks behind a wall in order to force sign-ups and ad views. You and I both know the colloquial definition for "the people", it's literally the electorate of the state in question, in this case all the German citizens who are able to vote for the polticians who passed this public access law. This isn't the government trying to pry private company secrets from poor, downtrodden corporations, it's the government passing a law that public data from social media needs to be easy to access for researchers.
    - bloopernova 2y ago
      thank you The more people that call out derail and divide attempts, the better this site gets.
      - standyro 2y ago
        unfortunately this site is just as prone to thought bubbles, media bias, and disinformation campaigns, just like X...
      - ok_dad 2y ago
cmdli 2y ago
Researchers have exactly the same right to this data as X has to accessing the German market. If they want to make money, they play by the rules chosen by the people of that country. They are free to not sell their services if they don't like the deal offered.
- easytiger 2y ago
  Which researchers, and why do they have such a "right"?
layer8 2y ago
This law is not about arbitrary companies, but about large social networks affecting millions of people. Requiring a certain transparency from these seems justified.
oneplane 2y ago
Because that is what is democratically voted for? If the people (or the representatives they voted for) say that society having access to that data is what society wants, then the company can either provide that data, or have it taken from them. There should not be a scenario where a company "beats" society.
- jisnsm 2y ago
  Let’s not pretend anybody voted directly for this or was even aware of this law when they cast their vote.
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    No but we vote for people to do that on our behalf. And X is not just any company, it has high influence potential on society. And Musk has already openly tried to influence elections here.
  - computerthings 2y ago
    It's Americans having an issue with this, not Germans.
  - oneplane 2y ago
    DSA and DMA is widely known, but perhaps not by their acronyms or every individual rule. I don't know in what country you live, but this was not exactly some hidden issue, in almost all member states this was a local issue and had local news coverage as well. The only way someone would not have been aware is if they spent none of their time on any local or global reports. But in those cases, everything is going to be something they are unaware of and we'd be talking about people who are essentially disconnecting themselves from society. Everyone else would have heard about it multiple times since even local elections made a point of mentioning it, and election turnout is high, even if you don't participate yourself for some reason, it would be really hard to not have talked to anyone who did.
  - izacus 2y ago
    DMA is very popular among EU voters.
mindslight 2y ago
There are vanishingly few private companies of significant size. For example in the US most businesses with more than a few owners are government chartered corporations, LLCs, and the like. This gets them government granted liability shields, and so it makes sense for them to be proactively regulated to prevent causing foreseeable harm that they might otherwise escape responsibility for.
- singleshot_ 2y ago
  Every once in a while, someone posts a revealing insight into exactly why Business Organizations should be taught outside law schools.
singleshot_ 2y ago
Is such data owned by the platform in EU?

shawnz 2y ago

One possible counterargument is that bad actors could use the data to improve their spamming or astroturfing methods.

layer8 2y ago
Security by obscurity?
- shawnz 2y ago
  Not exactly: in the security space, we have better tools available than obscurity. But in the spam/abuse prevention space, obscurity is the best you can do.
jajko 2y ago
Counterargument it is, but its pretty weak considering benefits to free society
- shawnz 2y ago
  I agree that this seems like a net positive to me overall.
oneplane 2y ago
If that is the case, having researchers perform analysis makes it possible to identify that risk and that is yet another reason to make sure that public data is not obscured. In a way, this research would either prove or disprove your theory.
philjohn 2y ago
I mean ... have you been on X recently? The bad actors don't need any help.
- chihuahua 2y ago
  I think Elon is still working hard to get rid of the bots, just like OJ spent years looking for the real killer.

krick 2y ago

[flagged]

drysine 2y ago
>If it's publicly available, you don't need to provide any access to it, it's available. The data may be publicly available, but there may be anti-scraping measures.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
closewith 2y ago
> Last, but probably the main thing that triggers me is that it "requires" somebody do some work for free. Why the fuck any company or person must do any work, that it doesn't deem necessary, to satisfy the curiosity of some "researchers"? In democratic countries, there are many instances where you are required to do work for free to remain in business. You have to maintain accounts, records, licenses, authorisations, inspections, etc, depending on your business. This is a necessary part of engaging with the State in which you operate.
zimpenfish 2y ago
> What is a large online platform? The text actually says "very large online platform" which is defined in 33(1): > This Section shall apply to online platforms and online search engines which have a number of average monthly active recipients of the service in the Union equal to or higher than 45 million, and which are designated as very large online platforms or very large online search engines pursuant to paragraph 4. Paragraph 4 just reiterates that. Paragraph 3 gives scope for adjustment: > In such a case, it shall adjust the number so that it corresponds to 10 % of the Union’s population in the year in which it adopts the delegated act, rounded up or down to allow the number to be expressed in millions. Basically "very large" -> 10% of the EU population. I'm not a lawyer, though; there may well be specific legal shenanigans going on but at first blush, it doesn't look like it.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

BrenBarn 2y ago

> Why would anyone living in a democracy be against this? It seems a sizable number of people living in democracies would rather be living in non-democracies.

ethbr1 2y ago

> systemic risks Is the key phrase here. Good to see the EU recognizing there are innocuous things that when scaled to X- or Facebook- size produce systemic risks. And if you want to be a platform that large, well, you owe additional societal responsibilities that your smaller competitors don't have to worry about (yet).

topspin 2y ago

> Why would anyone living in a democracy be against this? Because the language I'm reading here doesn't mean anything. "Researcher" can mean anything. In the US we see DOGE people rifling through government finance records, pipelining the data to the executive, for targeting of specific political interests. "Research" means whatever the present democratically elected regime wants it to mean. "Systemic risk" can mean anything. Last month in the US, millions of "undocumented" people were walking around relatively unconcerned. This month they're all a "systemic risk" and being actively hunted down for deportation or worse. Maybe tomorrow you become a "systemic risk," and whomever is in elected office at that time designates and funds some academics to "research" all your X/Facebook/Mastodon/whatever activity. There is a non-zero possibility in Germany that AfD will one day get to designate what "research" means and what the "systemic risks" are. How does that sound? So it's not the least bit difficult to understand why members of a supposed democracy might think this isn't a power "researchers" should have. It's only a problem for the naïve, who suppose the future is governed by only the right people.

Hasu 2y ago
The data is publicly available. Researchers could get it by scraping, this law says that companies must provide more convenient ways to access that public data. This has fuck all to do with government overreach or access to private data.
- 8338550bff96 2y ago
  How convenient does the law say that it has to be?
  - cmdli 2y ago
    I don't know. Perhaps you could research it to found out?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- SuperNinKenDo 2y ago

ekianjo 2y ago

> Why would anyone living in a democracy be against this? In normal democracies searching through records require a court order.

viraptor 2y ago
Through private/personal records. This is not the case here.

like_any_other 2y ago

> Why would anyone living in a democracy be against this? The limit to "researchers" and "systemic risk" opens the door to cherry-picking the results - use a microscope to find issues when elections don't go your way, turn a blind eye when they do. The law is good (far better than not having it), but should be expanded, making the data available to everyone.

floydnoel 2y ago

personally i think it is akin to slavery when compelling people to take certain behaviors. corporations aren't people, but i could see some people applying that argument in this case.