The relationship between information and power is not a new concern. Ancient Greek historian Polybius defined ochlocracy as the degeneration of democracy where the mob is led to believe it is free to exercise its prerogatives while instead becoming the active instrument of one or more groups. The exponential spread of interconnected actors has fed a considerable flow of web-channeled data, the appropriate use of which platforms are required to manage. This endeavor calls for an ability to differentiate between content that is legal and that which may constitute a violation. The paradigm of the market of ideas appears to be on shaky ground these days due to the proliferation of misinformation, with the consequent risk of the market of ideas being transformed into a market of truths.
The main problem of this entirely new digital environment becomes understanding how it fits with people’s lives; how it can offer full protection of their fundamental rights while at the same time providing full access to the technology’s potential. The transition from an industrial capitalistic system to digital production has had a significant impact on policy that has generated a shortage of intermediation between representatives and those they represent, elected and electors. The challenge of the coming years is going to be to understand where and how to introduce new forms of mediation. Meanwhile, the current context is showing signs of increased government involvement. Even though the major digital platforms took shape in a regulatory vacuum devoid of either national or supranational legislation, pervasive forms of regulation capable of assigning liability are today considered indispensable.
On the other hand, the maximum caution should accompany regulatory activity. Indeed, the digital universe presents two asymmetries: the first lies in the disparity among regulators, and the second in various countries’ disparate application of regulations. The former derives from the fact that regulated digital economic operators are often multinationals capable of dodging national level regulations. The second depends on the fact that the absorption into national legislation and application of global and international regulations can end up hampering the kind of harmonized protection that would render disparities among national laws insignificant.
From this point of view, evolutions underway in Europe and the United States are highly important. The European Union is in the forefront of a global effort to set rules defending persons, democracies and online fairness; indeed, the GDPR has been disciplining privacy protections since 2016. Recently, the Digital Services Act has focused on creating a transparent, free and secure environment, while the Digital Markets Act is intended to limit platforms’ abuse of dominant market positions. Moreover, the EU Commission has proposed a general framework of digital principles that include the right to universal internet access, high quality connectivity, adequate training in controlling technologies and access to fair and non-discriminatory digital services. Over the past year, the United States has also seen the advancement of legislative proposals on digital content and algorithmic transparency such as the Justice Against Malicious Algorithm Act and the Filter Bubble Transparency Act.
The European Union and the United States are partners determined to ensure that digital economy regulation reflects shared democratic principles. This goal has led to the establishment of the Trade and Technology Council, which is aimed at facilitating cooperation on policies regarding the transatlantic digital space, IT security, data management, online platform regulation and mitigation of risks associated with artificial intelligence. On that same impetus, the United States intends to invite the EU, France, Germany, the UK, Canada, Australia and Japan to participate in an alliance on the future of internet. It is imperative that the two shores of the Atlantic cooperate in order to avoid regulatory instability or separatism.