The Legal Issue of Deterrence of Algorithmic Control of Digital Platforms: The Experience of China, the European Union, Russia and India
https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-1-147-170
Abstract
The authorities in a number of states are concerned about the need for public disclosure of the recommendation algorithms that are used in online services. The introduction of regulations aimed at software developers is frequently proposed as a potential solution to this problem of algorithm transparency. These requirements, which must be fulfilled by the developers of software products, can be administrative regulations or standards regulations. However, despite these efforts, in the absence of direct legislative regulation, users continue to encounter the possibility that a social network feed or a search service result may present content that is unequal or unclear. This is due to the fact that the logic behind these recommendations is not clear and is concealed by IT giants. The following are among the main provisions of legislative initiatives: the liability of digital platforms to publish the mechanisms of recommendation services, the responsibility to inform the user about the processing of personal data and the possibility for the user to refuse such processing. States have recognized the problem and are approaching it from different positions. Each region chooses what to prioritize in terms of the law. We see that for China and Europe, all areas of platforms are important, whereas for Russia, news platforms and video hosting are of interest and for India, social media is the most important platform category. However, in all of the countries, the requirements for the disclosure of the recommendation engine to a certain extent are expanding. The amount of information that is publicly available as well as the order in which it is disclosed are both variable. This study demonstrates the commonalities and differences in the approaches taken by various countries.
About the Authors
Yu. Kharitonova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Yuliya Kharitonova (Moscow, Russia) – Professor, Head, Research and Education Center for Legal Studies of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Economy, Business Law Department, Faculty of Law
1, Bldg. 13–14 Leninskie Gory, GSP-1, Moscow, 119991
N. S. Malik
Galgotias University
India
India
Namita Singh Malik (Greater Noida, India) – Dean and Professor, School of Law
T. Yang
Shenzhen MSU-BIT University
China
China
Tianfang Yang (Shenzhen, China) – Lecturer, Sino-Russian Comparative Research Center for Law
No. 1, International University Park Rd., Dayun New Town, Longgang District, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, 518172
References
1. Adomavicius G. & Tuzhilin A. Toward the Next Generation of Recommender Systems: A Survey of the State-of-the-Art and Possible Extensions, 17(6) IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 734 (2005).
2. Alt R. Electronic Markets on Digital Platforms and AI, 31(2) Electronic Markets 233 (2021).
3. Bodo B. et al. Tackling the Algorithmic Control Crisis – The Technical, Legal and Ethical Challenges of Research into Algorithmic Agents, 19 Yale J.L. & Tech. 133 (2017).
4. Bonina C. et al. Digital Platforms for Development: Foundations and Research Agenda, 31(6) Information Systems Journal 869 (2021).
5. Coglianese C. & Lehr D. Transparency and Algorithmic Governance, 1(6) Admin. L. Rev. 71 (2019).
6. Constantinides P. et al. Introduction–Platforms and Infrastructures in the Digital Age, 29(2) Information Systems Research 381 (2018).
7. de Gemmis M. et al. Content-Based Recommender Systems, in Ricci F. et al. (eds.), Recommender Systems Handbook (2015).
8. Di Porto F. & Zuppetta M. Co-regulating Algorithmic Disclosure for Digital Platforms, 40(2) Policy and Society 272 (2021).
9. Di Toro G. Algorithmic Transparency between Legal and Technical Issues (2021).
10. Diamond E. Distrust & Antitrust: Using Facebook to Understand Competition Law’s Role in Regulating Data and Data Privacy Concerns Around the World, 45(5) Fordham International Law Journal 873 (2022).
11. Gama J. et al. A Survey on Concept Drift Adaptation, 46(4) ACM Computing Surveys 1 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2523813
12. Gillespie T. Governance of and by Platforms, SAGE Handbook of Social Media 254 (2017).
13. Göldi A. A Blind Spot for the Dark Side: The Monopolies We Didn’t See Coming, 30(1) Electronic Markets 55 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00402-x
14. Just N. & Latzer M. Governance by Algorithms: Reality Construction by Algorithmic Selection on the Internet, 39(2) Media, Culture & Society 238 (2017).
15. Kahneman D.A. Perspective on Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality, 58(9) The American Psychologist 697 (2003).
16. Kharitonova Yu.S. et al. Artificial Intelligence’s Algorithmic Bias: Ethical and Legal Issues, 53 Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences 488 (2021).
17. Kumar A. & Jha A. Information Technology Rules, 2021 of India in Dock! A Critical Evaluation of the Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code, 20(48) Global Media Journal 1 (2022).
18. Malgieri G. Automated Decision-making in the EU Member States: The Right to Explanation and Other ‘Suitable Safeguards’ in the National Legislations, 35(5) Computer Law & Security Review (Article 105327) (2019).
19. Marsden C. et al. Platform Values and Democratic Elections: How Can the Law Regulate Digital Disinformation?, 36 Computer Law & Security Review (Article 105373) (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.105373
20. Otto B. et al. Information and Data Quality in Networked Business, 21(2) Electronic Markets 79 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-011-0062-2
21. Rai A. et al. Next Generation Digital Platforms: Toward Human-AI Hybrids, 43(1) MIS Quarterly 3 (2019).
22. Ramizo G., Jr. Platform Playbook: A Typology of Consumer Strategies against Algorithmic Control in Digital Platforms, Information, Communication & Society 1 (2021).
23. Scardovi C. Digital for the Greater Good, in Digital Transformation in Financial Services 187 (2017).
24. Shelanski H.A. Information, Innovation, and Competition Policy for the Internet, 161 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1663 (2012).
25. Shin D. How Do Users Interact with Algorithm Recommender Systems? The Interaction of Users, Algorithms, and Performance, Computers in Human Behavior 109 (Article 106344) (2020).
26. Sinha R. & Swearingen K. The Role of Transparency in Recommender Systems, CHI’02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems 830 (2002).
27. Song P. et al. The Ecosystem of Software Platform: A Study of Asymmetric Cross-Side Network Effects and Platform Governance, 42(1) MIS Quarterly 121 (2018).
28. Wachter S. et al. Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation, 7(2) International Data Privacy Law 76 (2017).
29. Wood A.J. et al. Good Gig, Bad Gig: Autonomy and Algorithmic Control in the Global Gig Economy, 33(1) Work, Employment and Society 56 (2019).
30. Zhou L. et al. Perceived Information Transparency in B2C E-commerce: An Empirical Investigation, 55(7) Information & Management 912 (2018).
Review
Supporting agencies: This paper was written as part of the 2021−2024 research project: “The Rule of Law in the Digital Economy in China and Russia: Current State, Challenges and Future Development” (The Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Academy of Social Sciences of China supported this research via grant No: 21-511-93004\21 КАОН_а).
For citations:
Kharitonova Yu., Malik N.S., Yang T. The Legal Issue of Deterrence of Algorithmic Control of Digital Platforms: The Experience of China, the European Union, Russia and India. BRICS Law Journal. 2023;10(1):147-170. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-1-147-170
Views: 516
Email this article 