Never have American social networks exercised such influence on European affairs. And never have they cared so little about fighting disinformation. Donald Trump and Elon Musk dealt the first blows to the idea, although widely shared, that fake news and online hatred would damage democracies. But Mark Zuckerberg happily follows suit: this exempts him from the responsibility and costs associated with the complex task of moderating what Internet users publish.
The boss of Facebook and Instagram is also counting on Donald Trump to obtain concessions from Europe in the supervision of web platforms. However, this is “not the time to give up”, explains Joëlle Toledano, economist, professor emeritus associated with the chair of governance and regulation at Dauphine-PSL University, member of the Academy of Technologies and author of Gafa. Let’s take back the power! (Odile Jacob, 2020).
L’Express: Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk are fundamentally changing the way their social networks operate and adopting an approach diametrically opposed to that drawn up by recent European digital regulation – Digital Services Act (DSA), Digital Markets Act (DMA). Is this a worrying sign for the European Union?
Joëlle Toledano: It’s a simple money story. This is a concise response which deserves further development, in particular on the legal risks involved, but also on the direct economic interests. But, ultimately, it’s a money story. Social media bosses like Mark Zuckerberg align themselves with the politics of whoever has power. They seek not to be sidelined and to take advantage of the new political configuration. This results in operational changes in the United States but also, they hope, in Europe since the bosses of social networks want Trump to help them question European digital regulation. The only surprise here is how quickly the situation is evolving. We didn’t expect the very neo-Trumpian Elon Musk to push things this far.
Are the DSA and the DMA adapted to Europe’s economic and informational challenges?
European texts are not as perfect as everyone wanted us to believe, but that is completely normal. The first regulations of the postal system or telecommunications also had flaws. It is normal to rectify and develop the texts as we gain a better understanding of the markets and the players. One of the current limitations of DSA and DMA is that they do not allow us to react very quickly, especially since resources are limited. Regulation must also be simplified. Bringing together the DSA and the DMA which have, ultimately, a common objective: to regulate the economy of these platforms which capture our attention by all means.
This problem of simplification goes even beyond these two texts. Take the example of dark patterns [NDLR : des interfaces trompeuses telles qu’un site qui place la section pour se désabonner à un endroit difficile à trouver]. The problem is addressed in three different places in our texts. This requires the intervention of three different regulators or judges, possibly located in different countries, for the same problem. Let us also ask ourselves whether it is good for digital regulation to be in the hands of the Commission, in other words in those of European politicians who are on the front line of negotiations with Donald Trump. This creates a problematic mix of genres. These tasks should undoubtedly be entrusted to an independent regulator. Finally, the texts rely too much on compliance, and not enough on control: they tell companies what they must do and not do to be compliant. But each interprets the texts in their own way and, of course, to their own benefit. This should be controlled more.
What should Europe do in the face of criticism from Gafam and Donald Trump?
It must stand firm, enforce its laws as much as possible, while improving the points where it notices a defect. There are always gray areas, for example, the scope of what is forbidden to say, and the evidence to be provided in this area. Europe must also equip itself with many more resources to enforce its regulations. The teams to whom these subjects have been entrusted are excellent but too small, and certain technical skills are lacking.
Thierry Breton regularly warned social networks and their leaders. The new Commission has barely reacted to recent developments in social networks. Do you fear that in order to change Donald Trump’s position – on customs duties, on American support for NATO and Ukraine – Europe will resign itself to letting go of its influence on digital regulation?
I hope that will not be the case. This is not the time to give up, on the contrary, but to apply these texts with all possible rigor. And if the Commission does not do so, the Member States must remind it of its duties.
Regulation is not an end in itself, remember. What results do you hope for from European digital regulation?
It is designed to generate European competition. Unfortunately, for the moment, I do not hear of any European players to whom the DMA has enabled them to develop a new activity. I hope many tech entrepreneurs are doing this, in their proverbial garage. But we can’t see them at the moment.
Why did the DMA not produce the same effects as the opening to competition of telecommunications in the 1990s in France?
The central problem of regulation is information asymmetry. You are faced with actors who know a lot more things than they want to say. The only way to make the right decisions is to hear a variety of points of view and, in particular, those of two categories of actors: the existing companies and the actors who wish to challenge them. This is what made the opening of telecoms to competition work well. The lighting from France Télécom was obviously valuable, but that of a Free or a Neuf Cegetel [ancêtre de SFR] was just as much.
European companies depend enormously on Gafam and the slightest change in their algorithm. They do not know if these American groups are likely to modify their operation, or in what way. When in doubt, they prefer not to venture into certain areas which could be disrupted by a change in algorithm. Even rarer are the Europeans who try to compete head-on with Gafam. However, it is these challengers who are best placed to see what is missing or what is wrong in the EU’s digital regulation. There is nothing more complicated than regulating a monopoly if there is not the beginning of competition emerging.
Elon Musk has significantly relaxed the moderation of X. Zuckerberg intends to do the same on Facebook and Instagram. This raises fears that Europeans will have difficulty, tomorrow, preventing hateful content and disinformation from circulating freely. It also reminds us that Europe has not created a social network of the scale of American or Chinese platforms. For what ?
The fact of not having a single market has certainly played a role. However, I wonder if having a European social network would change anything about the basic problem, which is that of the economic model rather than the nationality of the company. A European network that would like to compete with the Americans and built like those of the Americans around targeted advertising and the attention economy would pose similar problems.
.