I read the GPSR not really affecting intermediary liability under the DSA but the accountability part in Chapter III. It is as if that Chapter of the DSA is revisited and further specifications are added where applicable -many of which could work beyond product safety, sectorally or horizontally.

I think many accepted the need for the law because of Facebook, but the law's reliance in general categories (illegal content, T&Cs, knowledge, awareness, etc) makes it very much fit for different business models... + Chapter III, section 4 for online marketplaces.

🤷‍♂️

I keep thinking about the self/co-regulation in advertising in broadcasting (clearcast.co.uk) based on a system in which third parties carry out that clearance (addressing the incentives issue) and whether we have a level playing field between online and offline advertising...

... in TTPA, PSR, where the obvious place to do it is the general regulation, i.e., the DSA.

As I see the political economy and proper policy-making on this, you cannot impose verification for ads with specific content, you do so at the general level because verification of advertisers comes before knowledge on content. And the irony is that the discussion on verification remains fragmented

I see trusted flaggers as part of the solution but hard to see if as the main component thereof.

PPS: maybe the best way of preventing any potential "sectoral hole" is the DSA being enforced. The DSA addresses massive policy problems. If it does so only in paper, sectoral legislation will deal with them. Scam ads would not be the problem they are if Arts 34+35(1)(e) would work in practice.

PS: it's maybe time to thing differently about filtering content and ads not only because of the incentives you mention. I doubt the verb filter reflects what happens with ads. Platforms have more awareness about ads than ads for various reasons.

I am afraid this is am instance where nuance is missing in the reporting. The text, for what I understand, is in line with Art 8 DSA and creates an exception to 6(1)(b) for a very specific case (PSP informing the hosting service) that, I would argue, is narrower than 6(3) itself.

Con la ventaja de contestar con un retraso impropio de la era digital, si echamos a patadas a algunos, supongo que hay que aceptar que para quién se hace hueco es para el tipo de político que figura como interlocutor en los mensajes transcritos en el informe de la UCO. Ea.

Rule of Law Report 2025 material though.

This might interest you: www.britannica.com/topic/politi...

¡Gracias!

Muchas gracias por compartir el artículo. ¿Puedo preguntar por alguna recomendación de lectura específica para profundizar en la taxonomía políticas exteriores estadounidenses de Walter Russell Mead a la que te refieres?

adamprzeworski.substack.com/p/diary?r=5a... @adamprz.bsky.social

Conclusion at the top of the section:

Maybe they have been designated but not empowered, since they are listed in the latest available minutes from the EDBS meeting as an observer: digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/...