The Media Commission has released an internet safety protocol that sets mandatory regulations applicable to video-sharing platforms headquartered within the European Union in Ireland, encompassing companies such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok among others.
This action performs the EU’s 2018 Audiovisual Media Services Directive aimed at minimising harm caused by the material presented on these platforms. The crucial obligations laid upon these platforms involve preventing the upload of harmful content and access to such content by kids, incorporating age verification processes. It also mandates the provision of parental control for minors below 16 years old.
The protocol introduces a set of general obligations effective from next month and a fully elaborated set of prescriptive obligations that the platforms ought to fulfil within nine months. Despite, there won’t be a formal review of compliance, the commission will make sure the platforms abide by the rules.
The commission will not stipulate the techniques the different platforms need to utilise to comply with the protocol, and even recognises the measures that some of them have put to limit harm. In any way they determine, the platforms have to fulfill the standards presented by the protocol. In case of failure to adhere to the obligations, they may face penalties of €20 million or 10 % of their yearly turnover.
Many of the larger video-sharing platforms have their European office in Ireland. This positions Ireland once again as the lead regulator across Europe, despite previous conflicts over the performance in data protection leading to Brussels taking over the regulation for larger entities.
Considering these circumstances, it is crucial for the commission to possess the capability, aspiration, and political support to fulfil its mandate. The commission’s self-regulatory approach has clear defects but it accommodates the challenge of imposing a uniform strategy due to the variation in the business models and technologies used by various video-sharing platforms.
The main criticism of this system is its subjectivity when ruling whether a platform has respected the protocol, as platforms can argue their compliance. There is the potential for disputes to escalate to the European Court Justice and lead to years-long resolutions given the resources of the organisations at hand and their potential opposition to the public interest regulation in Europe.