Grete Leesmann, an expert on information society at the Estonian Consumer Protection and Technical Supervision Authority (TTJA), told Vikerraadio's "Uudis +" show on Wednesday that there  is no explicit rule stating platforms cannot censor content published on them. However, he added that there are certain limit to this.

"Each platform s able to outline the platform rules in its terms of service, which users also have to comply with. However, there are other restrictions in different legislation that they also have to take into account, such as media freedom."

In a situation where a platform such as Facebook or X (formerly Twitter) has deleted a user's post, closed their account or done something else that the user considers wrong, the first thing the user ought to is to report their dissatisfaction directly to the platform, said the TTJA expert.

If the response to the first message they send to the platform, which is often automatic or AI-generated, does not satisfy the user, they have the right to receive an explanation from a company employee, Leesmann said. 

"In fact, every platform has an obligation to justify why the content is being restricted  – whether it's content for a regular user, or whether it's content for a media outlet – they have to justify it to the user in every case. And that justification has to be sufficient to allow people to appeal against the decision. People must have that possibility if they disagree with the decision," explained Leesmann.

"They can first of all appeal to the platform – complain that they don't think the decision is correct and justify that in light of the information they have received from the platform's explanation. And then the platform again has its own obligations in terms of dealing with those complaints," he added.

After persevering, users can eventually speak to a real person. In short, the next decision must not be completely automated, it must not just come from AI software, a human being must review the complaint, he said.

If a person does not get a response from a human, they are able to turn to the Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority (TTJA), the agency's information society expert added.

"We can certainly help or even provide direction. In the framework of the new EU regulation on digital services, an out-of-court dispute resolution mechanism is also being developed, whereby in future, people will be able to dispute Facebook or other platforms through a third party. At the moment, there are not very many out-of-court dispute resolution points," Leesmann explained.  "However, the TTJA can be approached. Whether it's the kind of issue that needs a priority approach or we need more information, we usually approach the platform ourselves," he added.

If there is a breach or likely breach of the Digital Services Act (DSA), the TTJA can also refer the complaint to the platform's contact point in the relevant EU Member State, which for many large platforms is Ireland. "We are in contact with them so that they can assess how and in what timeframe the platforms resolve these complaints," Leesmann said.

In addition, the European Commission also monitors the larger digital platforms, and will communicate with the TTJA regarding issues faced by Estonian users. This will allow the Commission to look more broadly at what steps platforms are taking to assess risks.

Asked how quickly platforms ought to respond to complaints, Leesmann said there was no specific deadline.

"In fact, the rules require them to do so in a timely manner. Timely is a very general rule, it certainly depends on the criticality of the matter, in other words, how often the same problem occurs. Usually they respond more quickly to appeals from the authorities, but how they respond to appeals from users, whether that is quick enough, can probably be clarified in the process," he said.

Commenting on the case, whereby a Facebook post containing a news story from the ERR portal about Internal Security Service (ISS / KAPO) officers attending an event at the Sakala student society  was taken down within seconds, Leesmann said that following a request from the TTJA, Facebook had not yet responded to a request for further clarification.

Facebook justified the ban on posting the article by claiming it was spam.

"We haven't received a definitive answer at the moment, they've sent it on for further assessment to establish what caused the problem. They haven't yet established for themselves what caused the problem and I understand that the notice also said it was a spam – there may have been some kind of technical problem. We are still waiting for a final answer from Meta and Facebook," said the TTJA representative.

Asked whether the TTJA considered the posting of the article to be an infringement, Leesmann said it was difficult to say without having received a reply from Facebook. "Given that they assume that the notification was spam, it is clear that it was not [an infringement]. Clearly this post should not have been removed," he added.

However, Leesmann suggested that an error in the artificial intelligence could have been behind the article's takedown, and any information provided to platforms about such incidents should help them improve their capabilities.

Leesmann also said that the TTJA became the coordinator for digital services in Estonia on July 1. Currently, one person at the TTJA is responsible for dealing with the Digitial Services Act, though a total of five people will eventually be hired.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!