Transparenz, Datenzugang und „Online Harms“

The document argues that transparency is a prerequisite for public trust and democratic accountability in the digital sphere. It critiques current corporate transparency reports as insufficient, citing evidence that platforms like Facebook often underreport the scale of coordinated inauthentic activity. The report details a shift from 'notice-and-takedown' content regulation toward 'systemic' approaches, such as 'Safety by Design,' which require platforms to mitigate risks through their architecture and algorithms. It provides a detailed analysis of the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) and the UK's Online Safety Bill (OSB), highlighting their tiered obligations based on platform size and the introduction of independent audits. Finally, it presents five theoretical models of internet governance—Corporate, Autocratic, Libertarian, Machine, and EU/Liberal-Democratic—to illustrate the geopolitical struggle over the future of digital sovereignty and human rights.

• Current transparency reports from technology companies are insufficient for understanding the true scale of harmful content; for example, ISD research found that Facebook's released data only represents a fraction of actual coordinated inauthentic activity.
• Recommendation algorithms can actively fuel polarization and extremism; an internal 2016 Facebook report indicated that 64% of users who joined extremist groups did so because the platform's algorithm recommended them.
• The EU Digital Services Act (DSA) introduces a tiered system of obligations, with 'Very Large Online Platforms' (VLOPs)—those with over 45 million monthly active users in the EU—subject to the strictest systemic risk management and auditing requirements.
• The UK's proposed Online Safety Bill shifts toward a statutory 'duty of care,' requiring companies to prevent users from experiencing 'significant physical or psychological harm,' including 'legal but harmful' content for adults in certain categories.
• There is a critical tension between 'content-based' regulation (Notice-and-Takedown), which risks 'overblocking' of legal speech, and 'systemic' regulation, which focuses on 'Safety by Design' and the internal processes of platforms.
• The report identifies four primary forces shaping the future of the internet: States, Corporations, Individuals, and Machines (AI and 'trustless' technology like blockchain).
• The 'Autocratic Internet' model, exemplified by China, uses platform technology as an extension of state power for surveillance and social control, often banning end-to-end encryption and VPNs.
• The 'Libertarian Internet' model, associated with some US political visions, prioritizes a market free from regulation where freedom of speech is interpreted as freedom from state interference.
• The 'Machine Internet' represents a future where code becomes law and AI-driven decision-making replaces human governance, potentially operating beyond the reach of states or corporations.
• The EU's 'Digital Services Act' aims to set a global standard for online intermediaries by requiring transparency in advertising, algorithmic recommendation systems, and the establishment of internal complaint-handling systems.

APA

Colliver, C., Comerford, M., King, J., Krasodomski-Jones, A., Schwieter, C., & Tuck, H. (2021). Transparenz, Datenzugang und „Online Harms“. Institute for Strategic Dialogue. https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/DE-DPL-Begleitpapiere-12Apr.pdf

Chicago

Colliver, Chloe, Milo Comerford, Jennie King, Alex Krasodomski-Jones, Christian Schwieter, and Henry Tuck. Transparenz, Datenzugang und „Online Harms“. Institute for Strategic Dialogue, 2021. https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/DE-DPL-Begleitpapiere-12Apr.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Colliver |first1=Chloe |last2=Comerford |first2=Milo |last3=King |first3=Jennie |last4=Krasodomski-Jones |first4=Alex |last5=Schwieter |first5=Christian |last6=Tuck |first6=Henry |title=Transparenz, Datenzugang und „Online Harms“ |publisher=Institute for Strategic Dialogue |date=2021 |url=https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/DE-DPL-Begleitpapiere-12Apr.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{colliver2021transparenz, author = {Colliver, Chloe and Comerford, Milo and King, Jennie and Krasodomski-Jones, Alex and Schwieter, Christian and Tuck, Henry}, title = {{Transparenz, Datenzugang und „Online Harms“}}, institution = {Institute for Strategic Dialogue}, year = {2021}, url = {https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/DE-DPL-Begleitpapiere-12Apr.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }