How and to which extent will the provisions of the Digital Services Act of the European Union impact on the relationship between users and platforms as information providers?

In the contemporary information age, recommender systems (RSs) play a crucial role in determining the way in which people interact and obtain information online: in fact, from social media feeds to news aggregators and e-commerce websites, users are constantly targeted by personalized recommendations about what they may like. The Digital Services Act (DSA) of the European Union1 [3], which is the first supranational regulation addressing automated recommendations specifically, defines a RS as “a fully or partially automated system used by an online platform to suggest in its online interface specific information to recipients of the service or prioritize that information, including as a result of a search initiated by the recipient of the service or otherwise determining the relative order or prominence of information displayed” (DSA, art. 3 (s)). This definition highlights the method (“fully or partially automated”), aim (“to suggest”), content (“specific information”), target (“recipients of the service”), input (“as a result of a search initiated by the recipient”) and output (“determining the relative order or prominence of information displayed”) of a recommendation process. As it can be observed, RSs are involved in the main aspects of online interactions, and this is why their influencing potential should not be underestimated. In fact, whilst RSs are aimed to improve user’s experience by reducing the information overload, they can give rise to a variety of ethical concerns related to privacy, autonomy and fairness [5], to name but a few. However, independent research and users’ access to the design and functioning of the RSs implemented on mainstream platforms is usually prevented by their proprietary status. The DSA addresses this issue with a specific article, according to which “Providers of online platforms that use recommender systems shall set out in their terms and conditions, in plain and intelligible language, the main parameters used in their recommender systems, as well as any options for the recipients of the service to modify or influence those main parameters” (DSA, art.27 (1)). The aim of this provision is to “explain why certain information is suggested to the recipient of the service”: therefore, the parameters need to include, at least, “the criteria which are most significant in determining the information suggested to the recipient of the service” (i.e., content) and the reasons for its “relative importance” (i.e., ranking) (DSA, art. 27 (2)). Additionally, when options to modify or influence the main parameters are stated in the terms and conditions, “providers of online platforms shall also make available a functionality that allows the recipient of the service to select and to modify at any time their preferred option” (DSA, art. 27 (3)). In order to make this requirement work in practice, “That functionality shall be directly and easily accessible from the specific section of the online platform’s online interface where the information is being prioritised” (ibidem). Article 27 of the DSA seems to be aimed at empowering users to influence the outcome of algorithmic recommendations. Therefore, this provision addresses four of the aspects of the definition of RS provided by Article 3: method, target, input and output. In particular, the traditionally passive role of the target could be reversed, as the recipient might determine the method (through the choice of parameters) and, indirectly, also the input (the type of data to be processed through the parameters) that the RS will use to produce its output. However, platforms are not obliged to be provide options for users to modify or influence the parameters if this possibility is not specified in the terms and conditions, and platforms arguably have no interest in providing this possibility voluntarily. Therefore, this article formally grants users the right to influence the recommendation process but only in some limited cases which are not likely to happen, as [4] point out. Moreover, the practical impact of these provisions will probably depend on users’ ability to understand the structure and the policy of the algorithmic recommendations. It should be noted that Recital 70 of the DSA outlines a wider scope for the provisions on RSs than what is included in Article 27: indeed, the statement that “online platforms should consistently ensure that recipients of their service are appropriately informed about how recommender systems impact the way information is displayed, and can influence how information is presented to them”2 (DSA, recital 70) does not seem to be reflected in the actual provisions of Article 27, at least to the extent that the adverb “consistently” would entail. From this perspective, the right to explanation that could be identified in the “easily comprehensible manner” through which platforms “should clearly present the main parameters […] to ensure that the recipients understand how information is prioritised for them” (DSA, recital 70) might not lead to a real users’ empowerment. However, given the consequences that this recently enforced regulation can have both on the business of online platforms and on the self-determination of users, my research aims at understanding how and to which extent the DSA provisions will impact on the relationship between users and platforms as information providers, especially for what concerns their status as prominent stakeholders in the recommendation process [6] To help enforce the new requirements, the European Commission has recently established the European Centre for Algorithmic Transparency (ECAT), which will assess “whether very large online platforms and search engines comply with their obligations under the Digital Services Act”, including by carrying out inspections at the platforms’ premises to analyse “the design, functioning and impact of advanced algorithms, like recommender systems, in their production environments" [1]. Taking the opportunities provided by the implementation of the DSA, my research will involve three main stages. Firstly, a preliminary scoping phase will involve examining the connection between the aim of the regulatory requirements presented above and the ethical issues around RSs and digital nudging identified in my past research. Secondly, I will analyse the documents that would become available as a result of public inspections, audits and assessments of RSs, and compare the findings of such review with the impact of other regulations on RSs, like the Internet Information Service Algorithmic Recommendation Management Provisions of the People’s Republic of China [2]. This comparative perspective may help account for the new constraints and changes concerning the implementation of RSs across the world. Thirdly, I will develop a survey-based user study to understand whether and how the availability of explanations and the opportunity to modify RSs provided by the DSA impact on the way in which users interact with online platforms. This project has a timespan of two to three years, depending on the timeliness of the release of documents that digital companies and public officials will make available and accessible by researchers. The expected result of this research is an initial map of the ethical and societal implications of the enforcement of the DSA on the transparency of proprietary RSs and the subsequent application of fundamental rights for users’ autonomy and self-determination.