This text summarises very well contoversies around Section 230 of the US Communication Decency Act. It is an interesting example of political controversy since there is agreement on the need to change the Section 230 but for different reasons among democrats and republicans.

The Section 230 controversy could be an excellent example of conversational presentation of informaton (Socreatic dialogue) involving: Democrat Republican Tech Company

||GingerP||||Jovan||||Pavlina||||TerezaHorejsova||||VladaR||||NatasaPerucica||||MariliaM||||Katarina_An||||kat_hone||||djordjej||

||TerezaHorejsova||||Pavlina|| This sentence of Biden not going against big tech is contradiction to the next paragraph that he would revoke Section 230 which is the basis of the tech business model (not being responsible for content run on platform.

A few points:

• need for ex-ante regulation of a 'gatekeeper platform' (time-component of regulation) via quantitative ore qualitative criteria.
• difference between France and Germany when it comes to breaking big tech companies.
• Digital Service Act will focus: online advertising, content moderation, and algorithm: what is exact coverage of Digital Service Act and Digital Market Act.
• what are elements of the 2000 eCommerce Directive?
• change of 'country of origin principle of 2000 directive may affect current 'e-leaders': Ireland, Malta, Estonia.
• how to ensure that big tech companies won't spill over regulatory burden on European small companies.

For DW research:

• to establish trend on the Digital Service Act
• to make clear distinction between the Digital Service Act and Digital Market Act
• to follow in parallel changes in EU (Digital Service Act) and USA (Article 230 of the Communication Decency Act)

||StephanieBP||||Pavlina||||AndrijanaG||||NatasaPerucica||||Katarina_An||||spavlovic||