were mortal, because no matter our color, our blood is the same and that we should be grateful for those who survived. thank you guy. what did what he mean? international audience for this years carnival was smaller at the themes, a social and racial discrimination have struck a chord with brazilians as they prepared to elect. when you, president, in october, monica inactive, al jazeera, rio de janeiro. ah . so this is al jazeera, these are the top stories and poles have now closed in large parts of france. both contenders for the next president of france have voted along with millions of their supporters as he bids for a 2nd term. president manuel macro caught his ballot in litigate for challenger marilla pen cost her palate, northern france as well. a voter turnout by 5 pm was just over 63 percent. 2 points lower than 5 years ago. natasha butler has more from paris. it is

a really an election in which you have 2 candidates with 2 very different visions or frauds, the pro e u. r. centrist, the reformer, emmanuel macro, and the others. on the other hand, of course, his rival, the far right leader, anti you anti immigration, marine la penny, really is a battle between 2 candidates that have very little in common. you might say, ukraine's president is asking our lives for more weapons ahead of a meeting with top us officials. florida may zalinski said the secretaries of state and defense are expected in cave on sunday. to discuss the country's need for more powerful arms. at least 12 people have died and another 10 a missing half to 4 boats carrying a 120 migrants and refugees sank near to nicea at the coast guard rescued. at least 98 people off the coast. as facts, army commanders in marley say at least 6 soldiers have been killed in 3 separate attacks and identified gunman targeted military bases with bomb laden vehicles.

miley has been repeatedly attached since fighters linked to al qaeda, sees territory in the north 10 years ago. a similar attack happened around the same time in neighboring burkina faso. a 5 soldiers were among 10 people killed when an armed group, the tight and military unit. niger is, president says the nation is in shock at the killing of at least 200 people at an illegal oil refinery officials in imo state say the explosion on saturday night burnt victims beyond recognition. an appointment is high in the south and the illegal tapping of oil pipelines has become a common source of income. the coast guard in northern japan says 10 people are confirmed dead after a sightseeing boat went missing in bad weather. helicopters and patrol boats are continuing to search for the 16 others who were on board or at your state with headlines. more news coming up here on our desert right after we go to inside story . see you later. aah!

from the ruins of mosul. music has re emerged these are some of 14 musicians who make up the weather orchestra in iraq, 2nd largest city. despite being banned, when mosul was occupied by isolate the melodies arrived. derfin christian curd are absurd needs and she has these young men and women represent the diversity of iraq to be able to hear music. i mean the ruins of mussels, old city, feel strange, but it brings home the resilience of residents who say that despite the destruction and lack of help, they remain committed to bringing the city back to life. keep user safe or refined billions of dollars. the you sets new rules, forcing tech companies to remove illegal content. how will the regulations work? and could they limit free speech on the internet? this is inside story. ah

hello and welcome to the program. i'm how much am jerome it's being held as the start of a new era for online protection. the european union has approved rules to force big technology firms such as google, facebook, and twitter to remove illegal content. if they don't, they can be find billions of dollars. tech companies lobbied against the digital services act or d. s a. but you politicians finalize the details on saturday after 16 hours of negotiations. the rules outline how company should keep users safe on the internet . tech groups will also have to disclose how they tackle this information and propaganda. that effort gained momentum after rushes invasion of ukraine. it's a rat. we have the political agreement on the good service act. i have learned so much these 2 years. and the agreement tonight is better than the propose that we

take and what we have achieved is it is not slow. and anymore was that what is an eager assign also be seen and that was as legal online. now. now it is a real thing. democracies back helping us to get our rights and to feel safe and we are online. the regulations will come into force in 2024. governments can ask companies to remove content that promotes terrorism, child sexual abuse, and commercial scams. social media platforms such as facebook and twitter, we'll have to make it easier for users to flag harmful content. that will also apply to e commerce companies like amazon for counterfeit or unsafe products. companies will be banned from using deceptive techniques to get people to sign up for services. repeated breaches could see them banned from trading in the you go who responded by saying it will work with policy makers on the details. last month,

e u approved separate legislation to prevent anti competitive behavior by tech companies. for example, sites like google will be banned from favoring their own services and search engine results messenger apps including whatsapp. we'll have to operate with smaller platforms, and it'll prevent software being pre installed on computers and phones. tech companies say that could stifle innovation. ah. all right, let's go ahead and bring in our guests from brussels. johan a sparky, coordinating spokesman for the digital economy, research and innovation at the european commission from maslick, catalina, go into associate professor in private law and technology at intellect, university in the netherlands and from paris. thomas vignette, partner and co chair of the global anti trust group at cliff for chance. law firm, a warm welcome to you all, and thanks so much for joining us today on inside story. your honest, let me start with you today. just how will these regulations work and also the fact that these new laws are to be enforced out of brussels rather than through

regulators and individual countries. is that going to make enforcement easier? thing 1st of all, yes, it will make it falsely easier. important to note that only do very big a platform, so if you reach 10 percent of european, so that is 45000000 uses, then regulation. and so it was meant to be with the commission uncles. so a small households, good not b, b as in boy, brussels. but it's of course easier here. this one set of rules for all other forms in the you and also central wasn't the city, catalina, of, from your perspective, just how ground breaking are these new rules and regulations and how, how significant is all this. i think that the especially the dsa, if we're looking particularly at the discourse, the public discourse around illegal content. this is definitely drunk, groundbreaking, because the dsa is making the invisible visible. we have had a lot of rules in the past that have been applicable together with an

e commerce directive, which is that now a predecessor seems to be predecessor of dsa, the digital services act. and there has been a lot of focus given to, you know, what kind of content should be online, such as the fact that platforms should be, should, should have a lot of activities that are, that they will be responsible for in terms of taking down, for instance, terrorist contact comes content or child pornography. so these rules have already been there before, but what the d. c is now bringing to the 4 and therefore making the invisible visible is that there's a plethora of other rules that will be a political at the same time with the traditional types of illegal content that we know. and we can see this in the definition of the legal content and the dsa currently which says that illegal content is basically any kind of content that is a violation of national or european law thomas. so now we have the digital services act that has been approved earlier this year the, you approved the digital markets act that's meant to tackle the market power of

silicon valley firms. how far reaching will these regulatory actions be? well, the digital market sack that you just mentioned is rather revolutionary in terms of the obligations that it places upon the largest platforms, which might very well include a few european companies beyond the, the american ones that will undoubtedly be included. so there will be some very far reaching obligations on those companies to enable up interoperability. for example, with facebook, an apple will be required to allow uses of different forms of been a payment mechanisms. google will have to rank and it's search results fairly without any preference for its own search results. so quite a number of really, very serious obligations. in addition, of course, to the brand new political agreement on the dsa, which has already been mentioned,

the honest these regulations, this is all very, very big in scope of how, how will it be insured that tech companies are going to police themselves? yeah, look, i mean i would like to add maybe one thing to what has it because the, the is a, is not only looking at if you get content, but also it at home for content. so think about, for example, content that promotes it. busy kind of, you know, can increase ease like eating disorders, for example. they talk, you know, it is kind of like young people following following the feed. and that may be inclined to, i don't know the eating. that is something that is not a good, but it is harmful to people who are like, well young people who follow this and so you will have not, you die forms. we do need a risk assessment every year. and then the risks that identified that the need to be a to mitigate this way than be controlled by the commission. and of course that would be fine. for example. i mean fines. they go up to 6 percent of the over in it. we

didn't extreme cases that would even be a better off a certain platform. so that is basically a right to start and really go into the risk assessment and seeing what was going to define, how are they mitigated and is enough to be done or not. you 100, let me just follow up with you regarding something you said you're talking about harmful content who, who gets to decide what is considered harmful content? i mean, i realize that there are a lot of details that still need to be worked out going forward, but, but who's going to be the arbiter on this? you look, i mean, one thing is of course illegal. one does have an easy to identify because this is, as i said at to find the law. now if it comes to half the content that is really 40 and for the for the bathrooms and says to look into what is their, their profile, what is harmful of what can be harmful in terms of their content? so they are like 4 categories. you need to be assessed beyond the content. so for example, restrictions to freedoms or harmful content that could for example,

effect minus or know this information. you know, so it does, but it really depends. i mean it's a platform that it is harmful home. it was a different, a risk profile then for example, and on the marketplace, we had more maybe about called a few goods that may not be, let's say, a dangerous and not compliant. you know, so it really depends on the person deserves to see what is the risk profile that i have as a platform. and how do i need to mitigate this was a catalina, i saw you reacting to a lot of what you're hundreds were saying there. so i'm going to let you jump in, but i also want to ask you the same question. i mean, who gets to ultimately decide what is deemed to harmful content and does that bring up freedom of speech concerns as well? absolutely. so the answer to your question actually is going to determine the success of the dsa because i completely agree with you on it. so there are a lot of different areas or different types of content that the d s. a covers. so

illegal content, you can look at this also from a very, from a very technical perspective and you can see, okay, is there a provision at national are european on a level that is going to say, you can have advertising 2 words miners under a specific age and if that exists, for instance, if we look at the audio visual media services direct them, then immediately if type of content is going to be against this provision, it can be deemed in eagle. then we also have the system this, these are systemic critics. so if a platform through its architecture, through the fact that it amplifies types of content, that could have an impact on decision making on the well being of users or, and a lot of other aspect such as democracy. touching on what you were mentioning, freedom of expression and also different political advertising a freedom, then it can be a matter of really trying to investigate. and this is where the procedural aspects of the dsa come very much in hand to investigate what exactly are the systemic

rests and how can we own them in the main problem. here are the key word here is going to be data access. and i really hope that in the enforcement of the d. s. a and also in the, in implementation. so 1st of all, in the design of the infrastructure that are going to have to implemented, there will be a sufficient, sufficient attention paid to the fact that data shared by platforms is not necessarily reliable. so we have a little bit of a catch $22.00 situation. we have seen this before when facebook tried to share research data, and we've seen that there were mistakes made. and a lot of research was deemed completely inaccurate because of the fact that facebook data simply was not good. as a catalina, it sounds like what you're describing, you know, is rather complicated as far as, you know, setting up procedures in order to be able to implement this. i mean, do you foresee this going smoothly or do you think this is going to get rather messy? and i had very much depends on also the coordination of all of the stakeholders that have already powers and investigation. so for instance,

if you look at the national consumer protection authorities, because consumer protection has been a very massive concern and also for the dsa, you 100 was already mentioning the fact that you can have various types of content . for instance, i call accounting counterfeit good or sometimes also considered to be products that platforms need to look at. and then remove also from a consumer protection perspective, not just the until and the collect your property perspective. but the problem here is that it very much depends on how all of these organizations that have a stake in the implementation of the d. a and in the enforcement of prior regulation will come together. if we take, there has been a lot written about the political compromise around the dsa. and for instance, targeted advertising that actually is meant to target miners. so who is the minor in which country do we have which standards or who is responsible if it advertising,

it's a data protection. a lot of authorities nationally need to come into this web of not only substances rules, but also enforcement to figure out how exactly to divide or to, to coordinate the space of the digital market. because otherwise, there will be accountability ation of enforcement. thomas, from your vantage point, how do you think tech companies are going to deal with these new regulations? do you expect that these new you regulations are going to face a lot of legal challenges by big tech? well, one could suggest that perhaps the death declarations of victory that had surrounded this political agreement might be a bit premature. in the sense that it seems to me at least that there is a great deal that remains to be seen about how the dsa is enforced. how harmful content as you suggest is, is, is defined and, and how these new rules will be implemented by the,

the tech companies. i do find that there is quite a lot of vagueness in, in the new proposed loc as it's not yet fully adopted. and, and it's going to be difficult, i believe, for tech companies to know exactly what they have to do and what they may not do so. so i think there's a great deal of uncertainty about how this is how this actually pens out. it will require a lot of good faith on the part of everybody involved and we'll see whether that good faith, materializes and thomas just to follow up when you're talking about, you know, this great deal of uncertainty that surrounds is, are you talking specifically about the digital markets act of the digital services act or, or both. i'm talking about both, but it does seem to me and i must say that my areas, antitrust that the digital markets act is the one that i am much more deeply involved in. but it seems to me that the digital services act for almost by design

it seems, incorporates a great deal more uncertainty. the digital market sack will also have a great deal of questions surrounding it about what it means and what the company is, who are gatekeepers, have to do what they may not do you want to see how much momentum did the effort to pass this legislation gain from the fact that there is so much this information out there with regard to the war in ukraine and also that there's so much this information out there when it comes to cover 19. yeah, i think the development digital highlights and they also highlight the need to do something and they have influenced a little bit the negotiations in a way that incorporated the crisis mechanism. because one thing is that you have regular complex or regular exchanges and these animals. but another thing is that you have a situation that you cannot preempt, like now the more your crane and to which you need to react a form and v as a regular electrons than what doing what they are seeing and what they do to

mitigate the risk and, and this is why this question is most incorporated now to, to allow these kind of talk conversations and, you know, operation on these issues. but if i mean at another point, because you mentioned a question about what is precisely there to ensure to freedom of expression because the one thing is to remove it. another thing is to what over remove. so this is why it was on to terms of use need to be very clearly with understand what you're going to understand, why i called this we will, if it's true. and they also need to have a means to address in the future to very easily say, i think there's a company. so i think what you want to do here is to give and this is what the market was higher. so i think i also know even said democracy in your letter, do not. is this a due to this question only to performance, but also to governance framework which governs the way this works?

honestly, this is very, very wondered if i can make a lost point to thomas that on the, on, on base it was, or maybe not. you find a lot of with this is rod a generic law because it is me for you to prove. i mean, you have nowadays certain number of homes that are not existing that say 10 years ago or 5 years ago or, you know, if you do not know what the next is, i will just when i was a so you need to have lost it are is a huge proof, the e commerce to record the image is 20 years old. so you see a long time, so it needs to be approve and cover also. you know, the emotional and future. thomas, i saw you nodding along to some of what your honda was saying there look like you want to react. please go ahead. yeah, i agree completely. that precisely defining, for example, what constitutes harmful conduct is really just not possible. because new kinds of harmful con, con, do contra harmful context tent will arise and it needs to be future proofs. so i

don't disagree with a toll with that. but the fact that the, the con, the content of harmful content is so uncertain, is going to require a great deal of good faith on every one side in order to make this work. it seems to me, catalina, you know, the articles that the reporting about, about what's in the d. s. a digital services act says that it's going to allow people to be able to choose how content is presented to them. i want to ask you, is it actually going to allow people to, to stop algorithmic profiling. that is set up, you know, to get more engagement. are they actually going to be able to opt out of that? so i think that the, there hasn't even been a lot of public discourse around france. it's targeted advertising and full time for instance, with an m e p, who really has been speaking about this at length. we what we, what we can already see is that there are a lot of platforms are already creating parallel recommender systems. so for

instance, instagram and twitter even take talk have that right now. there are definitely deaf a different types of, for instance, for you pages or different types of feeds. and then some of them are based on more, perhaps of the time or, or data related factors. and some of them are based on, for instance, the people who you follow in a platform. so from that perspective, you could argue that already some, there are being some, some changes are already being very visible. now the thing is that one of the major problems that i think the d s a perhaps can start to tackle. but it is so complex that, that we still need a lot of other solutions is the fact that the data broker market is very or peak. so do we even have a map of a really understanding which companies are using the type of data that is being collected also by social media platforms?

which types of platforms are marketplaces are not using that? how. what is the percentage of the platforms that use that? so all of these questions remain still to be answered because the pace at which the online and the digital economy is developing is incredibly fast. and this is why i completely agree with what your honda was mentioning, that we need future proof regulation. the question is how do we draw the line between not having too little content in context and having too much as thomas was mentioning? because otherwise, sometimes we deal with legal uncertainty even when future regulate future pro regulation is there. and the example that comes to mind as the commercial practices direct that has been and is still a can very nicely tackled dark pattern, which is another type of a user manipulation that we see very much quoted in. a a public discourse around the d a say. but if you look at the definitions in article 5, for instance of the p d and you see tests that are very, very vague,

like an unfairness test. you still rely, need to rely on a judge to interpret that. and if you don't have clear interpretations for a very specific situation, then the market doesn't know what to do with that. and we see that very clearly with dark patterns, catalina, i also want to ask you for a moment about the, another law that you acted the data privacy law called the general data protection regulation. you know, there's been a lot of criticism that it has not been enforced vigorously enough. are you concerned that the same thing might happen with the digital services act? i definitely see that we're moving into an era of digital enforcement, digital mark monitoring, and also market surveillance done not only by the data protection authorities, whether you're a peon or national level that are designed and, and have the mandate to implement and enforce the g d p r, but also with a lot of other agencies and a lot of other authorities. so i think that enforcement is going to be perhaps we're going to see more and more enforcement in the future. the,

the question that i would like to ask, and also perhaps to, for this discussion, but also for other debates is how do we ensure that we have coherent enforcement across all of these agencies that are stakeholders in the digital market. and that is the $1000000.00 question. you're 100. there are tech companies who say that these regulations could stifle innovation. what's your reaction to that? so if i could just quickly come back to the enforcement because it's very different, as you know, for state of protection which is enforced, not only the national level but also the regional, for example in german. yes. the regions that aren't charged offices, or if you have several enforcement and that comes back to your 1st question that the say will be enforced by the forms by $45000000.00 uses by the commission. and it's the same is true for the d. m avenue because people but the gate. so, and that is completely different situation. and, and i would also like to add one point on the targeting. guess what did you say foresees is that you have an option to we can eat out and say, no,

i do not want to be targeted. and they want to recommend a system that is not based on target. now you can of course say it is not very useful. so it was we, by the choice with the consumer itself was we have to bend for talk that of us. it wasn't for miners and for, for sensitive data. now, when you question, the point of it is a is to introduce obligations that come to class size matters. if you're a small company and you actually find it easier because you don't have to hold the big debate at the same obligations of the big, the forms is also one aspect. i mean, it is very important exactly that you've lost that innovation, that this is exactly what you say. you may, in a way where see that you have different obligations for because then for small ones and the d, my for example, gives rights to smaller competitors. for all the marketplace is to sell the product to have access to that data which date. now what is to have so, and it was actually protect the small company at thomas, we have

a little less than a minute left here. let me just ask you very quickly from your vantage point, does the you have enough manpower to actually be able to monitor and enforce the digital services act and the digital markets act. that was exactly the point i wanted to just raise both of these pieces of legislation together. mark a huge increase in the amount of regulation in the tech tech sphere. and i tend to doubt that there will be sufficient resources deployed by the european commission to be able to effectively enforce. all right, well we have run out of time, so we're going to have to leave the conversation there. thanks so much. all of our guests, johan is market, catalina, go into and thomas vineyard. and thank you for watching because he the program again, any time visiting our website, al 0 dot com and for further discussion, go to our facebook page. that's facebook dot com, forward slash ha, inside story. you can also join the conversation on twitter. i handle is at ha, inside story. i mean, how much am room in the holding here and uh huh. bye for now. ah,

it is a couple of minutes to $1800.00 g m t $7058.00 p. m. in paris. hello, i'm the clerk and we'll be getting this news out slightly early to bring you al jazeera, special coverage of the french presidential election. final ballots are being cast and very shortly. we'll have estimated results, voters choosing whether to reelect president, a man or micron, or go with his challenge. emory le pen leader of the far right national rally party, as cross treadaway to paris. natasha butler is standing by natasha. estimator

results or imminent they are imminent and i'm gonna keep looking down just to see whether or not i get them and i can read them out to you. this basically brings to an end the past 2 weeks in which we have seen a manual micro, the, a sender centrist incumbent. he is looking for a 2nd term campaign, very hard indeed, as has his rival the far right leader marine append both have been trying to persuade undecided voters to go out and vote. they've also been trying to persuade many of voters on the left to go out and vote for them because there hasn't been a natural candidate for left wing voters, but we know the millions picked the far left leaders only guinasso in the 1st round . so those voters have been seen has been very much up for grabs. if you like, by boast, macro and le pen, we have seen rallies, we have seen them going around markets trying to present their vision to the people

. and they are 2 very different visions indeed, emmanuel macro pro e u. he has some one who wants to continue. he says with his reformist, in agenda he is a bully in multilateralism. on the other hand, marine the pen who is going for a 3rd shot at the lease that she very much hope to become frauds. his 1st a woman president, she also hopes to become the 1st fall, right, president in the lease a she is anti you. she's anti immigration, she says that if elected, she would known to referendum on national identity in france. you'd also ban a muslim women from being able to wear a headscarf in public. i'm just gonna look down to see if we got the results and i believe they might have come in. what i'm saying is emmanuel mcgraw on 58.2 percent. marina pen on 41.8 percent. so 58.2 percent for a man or micro amberin the pen $41.00.