Henrik Alexandersson: EU:s nätlagstiftning hotar yttrandefriheten

Henrik Alexandersson you are a liberal public commentator Welcome Thank you very much You have written a lot about the Digital Services Act which is the EU legislation to regulate what is said and monitored online What are your thoughts on the Digital Services Act Actually I think it's quite unnecessary It basically just says one thing which is that illegal content should be removed from the internet It is the only truly sharp requirement in the Digital Services Act and it certainly does not need separate legislation The reason this legislation still exists as I perceive it is that politicians want more control over free speech on the internet But then you end up with a lot of strange things such as the largest social media platforms and search engines also having to monitor content that may be considered harmful but is not illegal But this is expressed quite cautiously in the Digital Services Act because this is indeed a tightrope There is thus a law stating that large social platforms must remove illegal content without specifying what this potentially harmful illegal content is Oh that would be totally bizarre and open the door for censorship and abuse of power What do you think about this conflicting with freedom of speech and press freedom So this conflicts with that Then human rights also have a lot of exceptions If I look at the basic principles I see the Digital Services Act as not aligning with fundamental human rights and what it says about freedom of expression Without this it's simply an attempt in a quite large puzzle that politicians are now putting together to gain influence over what is said on the internet There is something called Trusted Flaggers in the Digital Services Act which are trusted reporters in Swedish They have not had a huge impact in Sweden Would you just briefly explain what it is These are organizations of various kinds that can be designated as some form of state-approved network sensors It cannot order platforms to remove content but they get a direct line to social media to recommend which material should be removed urgently This is problematic in many ways If you want to remove content from the internet there must be something that you have established as illegal and there must be a legal assessment of the entire matter What is done with Trusted Flaggers is that organizations are designated as state-approved actors who recommend content removal without prior legal review If someone is acting on behalf of the state or as the state's representative we must have legal certainty in the process which we do not have here In Sweden there are only two organizations that are approved as Trusted Flaggers These are if I'm not mistaken ECPAT and the Swedish Anti-Theft Association How has the rollout of Trusted Flaggers been in Europe Have any trends been observed What has happened Sweden has done pretty well If one is to assess whether the material is illegal or not ECPAT and the Swedish Theft Protection Association are quite non-controversial in this context When looking at countries like Germany they have indeed run a couple of organizations the role of Trusted Flaggers which is quite controversial It is about organizations that fight against hate and negativity online but have been criticized for pushing their own agenda and having their own motives being biased and having a political leaning It is very unfortunate in that case If someone is subjected to a state internet census one must be certain that the person is not doing it for their own purposes and is not pursuing their own agenda These cases in Germany what kind of organizations are we talking about and has this debate had any consequences Are they still Trusted Flaggers If you want Trusted Flaggers it's very important that they are seen as impartial Both Doku and Expo are somewhat red flags for each side in the Swedish political debate Expo is often criticized as a left-wing opinion police and Doku is occasionally accused of Islamophobia Both of these organizations are questioned regarding their objectivity It's unfortunate when organizations that are already questionable are appointed and they pursue their own agenda Appointing them as any form of internet censors feels very wrong It makes it easier to report After all it's possible that those who run these games could develop AI features that flag if something needs to be checked I think that's a better way to go These chat rooms often consist of children and are frequently underage How do you view allowing non-governmental organizations to monitor these chats Children must also learn to be critical and take responsibility themselves and educate themselves to be media and source critical and to question even other information that comes to them through various channels I'm not sure that trusted flaggers would be the right solution here A trusted flagger can formally only report material that is directly illegal At the same time these trusted flaggers under the Digital Services Act have been given significantly more responsibilities regarding the creation of rules and the enforcement of user terms and similar provisions When it comes to things that are not illegal and when state-appointed operators get involved in things that are not illegal we are on shaky ground regarding the principles of the rule of law Of course the barn must be protected from unauthorized contacts of all kinds but I think this can be done better by making it easier to report and by the platforms themselves developing tools to identify such cases What do you think about children being scrutinized by organizations that many consider controversial Children also have rights Children are also covered by freedom of expression Children are also covered by the right to privacy and private correspondence The Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to private life and private correspondence private communications with other people The Convention on the Rights of the Child is often cited in all sorts of situations This is something that isn't just me complaining about but actually contradicts the basic conventions that we as a country and even the EU have committed to