Article 21 - Academic Advisory Board

Workshops like this are exactly what Article 21 Academic Advisory Board focuses on —?creating spaces to bring together diverse academics to critically think through the DSA regulation, ensuring that EU users are protected. Check out the blog post to read about the key takeaways from the workshop, where we discussed how ODS bodies (if at all) should apply fundamental rights during their decision-making.

It's been busy here at the Article 21 — Academic Advisory Board! For starters, the team is growing! Ibrahim Sabra joined the team as a Research Fellow! He is a legal and policy expert specialising in AI governance, internet freedom, and platform regulation. As a Chevening scholar, he brings extensive experience from leading institutions, including Columbia University and the University of Vienna. We're so excited to have him join us and contribute to our ongoing work! Ibrahim played a big role in putting together the Second Discussion Report. IF you haven't already, have a look at the report on our website here: https://lnkd.in/gaurEdwV There's a lot more brewing behind the scenes, we'll share more updates soon!

?? Publication of the Second Discussion Report We’re thrilled to share that the second discussion report, "The Role of Fundamental Rights in Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement under Article 21 Digital Services Act" is live! In its second meeting, the Board discussed critical questions about the integration of fundamental rights into the operation of out-of-court dispute settlement (ODS) bodies under the Digital Services Act (DSA). ?? Context: The DSA places fundamental rights at the heart of content moderation, but its practical implementation remains a challenge? — how do ODS bodies intend to operationalise fundamental rights in their reviews? ?? Key Highlights: ?? A central contribution ODS bodies can make to the ecosystem under the DSA is to make fundamental rights review more accessible, and the considerations for these assessments should align with the standards outlined in the Digital Services Act (DSA), the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR), and the ECHR. ??ODS bodies have a unique role in balancing thoroughness and efficiency while safeguarding user rights through a “case-by-case assessment” of fundamental rights in content moderation. These assessments should be informed by various factors such as the impact on fundamental rights, the type of speech involved, the reach of the post, the complexity of the case, the severity of sanctions, and the availability of less restrictive measures. ?? The Board recognised the need for further discussion on the importance of fundamental rights assessments for ODS bodies and agreed to revisit this topic in greater depth in the future. This report reflects the collective expertise of our Board Members — Jo?o Pedro Quintais, Iva Nenadic, Giovanni De Gregorio, Hannah Ruschemeier — and guest discussant Martin Husovec. Read the full discussion report here: https://lnkd.in/gaurEdwV

How is the Academic Advisory Board structured and who is responsible for convening it? ?? ?? The Structure: ?? 4 academics serving for a minimum of 12 months ?? At each meeting, #theBoard is joined by a Guest Discussant who is a subject matter expert on the specific topic being discussed ?? The Board meets bi-monthly under #ChathamHouse Rules Aspiring and certified #ODSbodies can bring the most difficult and consequential issues arising from their establishment and operations to the attention of the Board. ?? Administration's Role: The Academic Advisory Board Administration team consists of a Director (Niklas Eder) and a Research Fellow (Nitya Kuthiala). Together, they are responsible for:? ?? Preparing meetings and Discussion Reports ?? Chairing the Board meetings ?? Selecting the Guest Discussant In July 2025, the administration and the Board Members will evaluate the Advisory Board’s opportunities for additional impact and consider whether changes to the operating structure are necessary in its second year. If you’re interested in getting involved or contributing, reach out to us at [email protected]

Why was the Article 21 Academic Advisory Board created? Under Article 21 of the EU’s #DigitalServicesAct (DSA), National Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs) can designate organizations as out-of-court dispute settlement (ODS) bodies to address #contentmoderation disputes between users and platforms, particularly regarding the decisions made by online platforms, such as removal of content or suspension of services. This provides users with an accessible, efficient way to resolve disputes without going through a full legal process that is time-consuming ? and resource-intensive ??? These #ODSbodies issue decisions on whether actions—like removing posts or demoting content—were justified. While ODS decisions are non-binding, platforms are required to engage with these bodies in good faith. Though the creation of ODCS bodies has the potential to enhance #platformaccountability and safeguard #digitalrights and #democracy, the specifics of ODS remain unclear. This raises critical questions about the way ahead. For instance —? ?? How precise do platforms need to be about the contractual or legal grounds on which they base their content moderation decision? ?? What are the fundamental rights protection in the digital realm?? ?? How should ODS bodies review content disputes related to misinformation? ?? What kind of data should ODS bodies collect and report on? This is where the Article 21 Academic Advisory Board comes in. Founded on the principle that researchers should play an integral part in the conversation, the #AdvisoryBoard aims to foster academic debate and provide practical guidance on these pressing questions. Through open dialogue and discussion, we can shape the future of content moderation and ensure that digital rights are upheld! ????? Follow us to be part of the ever-evolving conversation with leading academics and practitioners like Jo?o Pedro Quintais Iva Nenadic Giovanni De Gregorio, and @Hannah Ruschemeier. #DigitalServicesAct #ContentModeration #ODSBodies #DigitalRights #UserRights

In an Article for the Verfassungsblog, our Board Members and Director discuss the challenges that Article 21 poses as well as solutions to overcome them. "The exhilaration and enthusiasm which followed the passing of the?Digital Services Act?(DSA) is long over. It seems that an initially prevailing sense of achievement and optimism has been replaced by a sceptical outlook: The DSA confers an excessive amount of power to the executive, big platforms only comply reluctantly, and the implementation of the DSA poses extraordinary challenges. No matter one’s perspective on the DSA, it seems clear that the party is over and the work begins." Find the full article here: https://lnkd.in/d_FpV2i3 Giovanni De Gregorio, Jo?o Pedro Quintais, Iva Nenadic, Niklas Eder, Hannah Ruschemeier

We're thrilled to launch the Article 21 - Academic Advisory Board. The Article 21 Academic Advisory Board discusses the most challenging issues arising in the development of out-of-court dispute settlement mechanisms under the DSA. It provides guidance to out-of-court dispute resolution bodies and regulators and informs the work of academics and civil society organisations. Exploring how to put Article 21 into practice, it makes a detrimental contribution to the emerging out-of-court dispute resolution landscape and shapes how out-of-court dispute settlement can contribute to content moderation accountability in Europe and globally. For more details, see our press release and our website under https://lnkd.in/e7wVn8th. Huge thank you to Jo?o Pedro Quintais, Iva Nenadic, Giovanni De Gregorio and Hannah Ruschemeier for being a part of it And big thanks to Nitya Kuthiala for setting this up with me.

In its first meeting, the Article 21 - Academic Advisory Board discussed how the quality of statements of reasons provided by platforms should impact the decisions of out-of-court dispute settlement bodies (ODS bodies). It developed a concrete solution which ODS bodies can apply to account for the importance of the reasoning given by platforms. This solution accounts for the fact that platforms require time to fully comply with the DSA and its Article 17. It also allows ODS bodies to assume a strategic role in the broader DSA landscape and to support gradual progress. The Discussion Report presents the questions the Board engaged with, outlines options considered by the Board and summarises its key considerations. These include the role of fundamental rights in dispute resolution; the standard of review of ODS bodies; strategic cooperation of ODS bodies with other important actors (e.g. fact checkers); possibilities of ODS bodies to encourage platforms to provide statements of reasons that satisfy the requirements under Art. 17 DSA; the role of reporting data and sharing insights with other actors and academia. Jeffrey Howard?joined the Board as a discussant in the first board Meeting. Jeffrey is an Associate Professor of Political Philosophy and Public Policy at University College London.