This obligation will allow media outlets to better understand the parameters affecting the visibility of their content on platforms. However, the EBU sees some limitations in the agreement, which does not adequately reflect the influence of platforms on access to information and opinion formation . For example, the text does not provide media outlets with the tools they need to challenge arbitrary decisions by platform operators , and complaint procedures remain too lengthy. Moreover, when users access media content through social networks, news aggregators or search engines, they must be able to easily identify who bears editorial responsibility.
According to the proposed agreement, only online marketplaces forex data will have to meet this important requirement. This criticism echoes some proposals put forward by the EBU in 2021 on the editorial protection of media organisations aimed at prohibiting any editorial decision on the part of platforms – whether to remove, suspend, disable access to or interfere with content lawfully posted online by a media organisation. As the measures made public by the DSA do not explicitly raise the question of the sovereignty of public media over their content in social-digital ecosystems, we are therefore still far from the notion of must-carry on platforms, defended by the EBU.
A regulatory model for the United States? The adoption of the DSA contributes to staging an opposition between the inaction of the United States in terms of regulating digital giants and the initiative strength of the European Union. Indeed, in the United States, while regulators have initiated antitrust proceedings against Google and Meta , no comprehensive federal law addresses the power of technology companies. Americans, above all, want to find a balance between the need for competition , to which they are attached, and the awareness that digital giants are their champions in the global competition against China.