Score 0-20: Speaker advocates binding, mandatory expansion of platform liability — full accountability for harmful/illegal content amplification, prohibitions, penalties, content-removal duties, DSA expansion. Score 21-40: Speaker subtly favours stricter rules — enforcement of existing DSA, conditional new obligations, strict application of existing instruments. Score 41-60: RARE (<5% expected). Speaker engages BOTH poles substantively AND advocates no specific binding measure AND is not deferring. Score 61-80: Speaker subtly favours permissive — voices concerns about over-regulation, fundamental-rights costs, proportionality on existing/proposed obligations; opposes specific stricter measures. Score 81-100: Speaker openly advocates minimal platform liability — anti-DSA, against EU content rules, free-speech-maximalist.
One poleWe must impose stringent regulations on digital platforms to prevent, remove, and moderate harmful or illegal content, holding platforms fully accountable for content amplification, hate speech, terrorist material, incitement, and illegal goods listings — with binding obligations, content-removal duties, penalties, and DSA expansion as needed. Platform responsibility for harm caused by their design choices and algorithmic amplification is paramount.
Other poleWe must avoid expanding platform-liability rules and rely on existing frameworks (DSA, GDPR) and self-regulation. Excessive content-moderation duties create fundamental-rights costs (overblocking, surveillance), restrict legitimate speech and innovation, and impose disproportionate compliance burdens. Platforms should not be held liable for third-party content beyond what current law requires.