Search

Purpose This paper aims to shed light on the impact of personalized news media on the shared issue agenda that provides democracies with a set of topics that structure the public debate. The advent of personalized news media that use smart algorithms to tailor the news offer to the user challenges the established way of setting the agenda of such a common core of issues. Design/methodology/approach This paper tests the effects of personalized news use on perceived importance of these issues in the common core. In particular, the authors study whether personalized news use leads to a concentration at the top of the issue agenda or to a more diverse issue agenda with a long tail of topics. Findings Based on a cross-sectional survey of a representative population sample (n = 1,556), we find that personalized news use does not lead to a small common core in which few topics are discussed extensively, yet there is a relationship between personalized news use and a preference for less discussed topics. This is a result of a specific user profile of personalized news users: younger, more educated news users are more interested in topics at the fringes of the common core and also make more use of personalized news offers. Research limitations/implications The results are discussed in the light of media diversity and recent advances in public sphere research. Originality/value This paper contributes to the ongoing debate about algorithmic news dissemination. While, currently, much attention is reserved for the role of platforms as information gatekeepers in relationship to the news media, maybe their ability to enable or hinder the audience in discovering and distributing news content is part of what really characterizes their influence on the market place of ideas.

Purpose– The purpose of this article is to analyse the concept of a fair balance between conflicting fundamental rights in the context of intermediary liability for third party copyright infringement.Design/methodology/approach– European Legal Method.Findings– Fair balance is the appropriate conflict resolution mechanism in cases of fundamental rights clashes. Balancing is in essence a call for rational judicial deliberation. In intermediary liability, balancing excludes the imposition of filtering obligations on intermediaries for the purpose of copyright enforcement, but allows blocking.Originality/value– An in-depth look at a complicated, vague and underdeveloped area of law with significant practical effect.

PurposeVideo distribution over the internet leads to heated net‐neutrality related debates between network operators and over‐the‐top application providers. The purpose of this paper is to analyze this debate from a new perspective that takes into account all of the assets that companies try to exploit in the so‐called battle for eyeballs in video distribution.Design/methodology/approachThe systematic value chain analysis is used to determine the points along the value chain where net neutrality interacts with video distribution. The inputs to the analysis are the existing and proposed policy measures for net neutrality in Europe and in the USA, and a number of net neutrality incidents that have led to discussions earlier.FindingsThe paper finds that the current and proposed policy measures aimed at net neutrality each contribute to a certain extent to their intended effects. However, the analysis also shows that they are likely to lead to new debates in other parts of the value chain, as players try to compensate the loss of influence or revenue streams by rearranging the ways in which they exploit their assets.Practical implicationsFurther and new debates are expected in the areas of peering and interconnection, distribution of resources between over‐the‐top and managed services and the role of devices with tightly linked search engines, recommendation systems and app stores.Originality/valueThe new perspectives offered by our value‐chain based analysis are valuable for policy makers who aim to promote net neutrality and simultaneously stimulate competition and innovation throughout the value chain.

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to make suggestions of how to improve the legal standing of consumers of digital content products. Design/methodology/approach - The analysis in this paper is based on desk research and comparative legal research, among others in the context of research performed in the context of a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and, in parts, on a study performed for the European Commission by Loos et al. Findings - This paper demonstrates that the legal and technical complexities of digital content products and the resulting lack of a clear notion of which product characteristics are still reasonable and normal can result in uncertainty for consumers and businesses, or even a lower level of protection for digital content consumers, as compared to consumers of more conventional products. In order to improve the protection of digital content consumers, defaults for the main functionalities and characteristics of digital content products may be needed. The article describes possible routes to create such defaults and concludes with suggestions for the way forward. Originality/value - The article suggests a new approach to improving the legal standing of digital consumers, one that takes into account the situation of digital consumers as well as the need for flexibility and room for innovation for digital content businesses. It is based on extensive legal and comparative research into the present legal framework and develops a new approach of conceptualizing the legal obstacles that digital consumers can be confronted with.