Abstract

The DSA relies heavily on procedural and transparency rules to regulate content moderation carried by the online content providers at the stages of rules-making, rules-applying and rules-appealing. This comprehensive regulation framework provides users with due process rights to contest with the providers and affords the latter with wide discretion. While the progress achievements made by the DSA is remarkable, this essay argues that the transparency rules in rules-making are not substantive enough for users to safeguard their fundamental rights; the wide discretion of the providers in rules-applying might result in inappropriate enforcement; the internal and external contestation in rules-appealing also might fail to offer effective remedies for users on account of their inherent bias and operation issues. Given these flaws of the due process regulation in the DSA, it further advocates that more detailed guidance shall be provided for the providers to safeguard fundamental rights of users in their rules-making and rules-applying, some voluntary standard should be placed to reduce the risk of over-and under enforcement, and a “crow-judging” redress system could better address disputes. In doing so, the DSA could have more checks and balances for the providers to achieve the goal of content moderation regulation.

Keywords

Digital service act, due process obligation, rules-making, rules-applying, rules-appealing