Activities of Dace MELBĀRDE related to 2020/2019(INL)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION with recommendations to the Commission on the Digital Services Act: adapting commercial and civil law rules for commercial entities operating online
Amendments (6)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls for steps to be taken to especially safeguard the availability and accessibility of content for which editorial responsibility isand liability are already taken or which is produced by journalists and all other media that are already subject to a generally recognised independent oversight on other platforms or in other services so that their content is not subjected to any further controladditional controls; notes, therefore, that compatible frameworks are needed for online and offline environments;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Considers that due to constant and rapid technological progress and the associated development of new products and services, many of which cannot yet be anticipated, any new relevant legislative proposals should as much as possible also be forward looking instead of only concentrating on addressing the immediate challenges related to online platforms and current dominant market players;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Highlights that relevant forthcoming legislative proposals should aim to strengthen the digital single market, and thus must avoid creating new barriers that prevent growth in digital services; stresses that any new obligations on platforms should be proportional to their market share and financial capacity, in order to help even the level playing field and promote competition instead of stifling it;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that communication always takes place in a given context, which is why automated procedures may support individual decisions on the legality of content; highlights, however, that adequate measures are needed to ensure that illegal content is promptly removed and does not reappear; is, therefore, of the view that illegal content must be tackled as effectively online as it is dealt with offline; notes that due to the constant technological progress, baut may under no circumstances replace themomated procedures sometimes already are, and may increasingly be an effective tool to help moderate content and, where appropriate, even support individual decisions on the legality of content;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that in addition to transparency obligations, regulations on theeffective yet proportionate measures, aimed at broadening the information environment and that do not stifle innovation, impede competition or limit the users’ choice on the discoverability and findability of content and, where applicable, restrictions on explicit self- referencing can make a significant contribution to the dissemination of lawful content.promotion of information and media pluralism, cultural and linguistic diversity and access to quality public value content; highlights in this regard the importance of qualified algorithmic transparency;