Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica (AUCI) is the main journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University. It has been published since 1954 and is one of the traditional law journals with a theoretical focus.
As a general law journal, it publishes longer studies and shorter articles on any relevant issues in legal theory and international, European and national law. AUCI also publishes material relating to current legislative issues. AUCI is a peer-reviewed journal and accepts submissions from both Czech and international authors. Contributions by foreign authors are published in their original language – Slovak, English, German, French.
AUCI is a theoretical journal for questions of state and law. It is published by Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Law, through Karolinum Press. It is published four times a year, the dates of publication can be found here.
Articles published in AUCI undergo an independent peer review process, which is anonymous on both sides. Reviewers from the field give their opinion on the scientific quality of the paper and the suitability of publication in the journal. In the case of comments, the opinion is sent back to the author with the possibility of revising the text (see Guidelines for Authors – Per Review Process for more details).
The AUCI journal (ISSN 0323-0619) is registered in the Czech National Bibliography (kept by the National Library of the Czech Republic) and in the Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals (kept by the American Association of Law Libraries). AUCI has been assigned a periodical registration number MK E 18585.
In 2021 the journal AUCI was the first journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University to be included in the prestigious international database Scopus. This Elsevier database is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature in the world. The editors of the journal expect from the inclusion in the elite Scopus database not only an increase in the readership of the journal, but also an increase in interest in the publication of papers by both Czech and foreign authors.
AUCI is an open journal and all its content is published both on the faculty website and on the Karolinum Press website. Access to it is free of charge. The homepage of AUCI is on the Karolinum Press website.
The AUCI journal uses the Creative Commons license: CC BY 4.0.
Long-term archiving of the digital content of the journal is provided by Portico.
AUC IURIDICA, Vol 69 No 2 (2023), 107–123
Strengthening the European Union by Regulating the Digital Single Market
Jaroslav Denemark
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2023.18
published online: 07. 06. 2023
abstract
Polarization of the society is nowadays easier than ever due to the strong influence of social media. Opaque algorithms personalize news feed of users through massive data processing and thus creating effects that are fueling extremization of opinions. Negative effects of social media can be used by third parties to influence society to achieve their goals, however antidemocratic. Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act aim to regulate Digital Single Market through fair competition and consumer protection regulation. This regulation can have significant impact on the democratic deficit of the European Union as it has potential to eradicate analyzed negative effects of social media on the polarization of society.
keywords: Digital Single Market; Digital Services Act; Digital Markets Act; Democratic Deficit; Fake News; Public Spheres; European Union Identity
references (32)
1. BENNETT, L. - LANG, S. - SEGERBERG, A. European issue public online: the cases of climate change and fair trade. In: RISSE, T. (ed.). European Public Spheres [online]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 108-138 [cit. 2023-02-18]. Available at: https://doi-org.ezproxy.is.cuni.cz/10.1017/CBO9781139963343. CrossRef
2. BRKAN, M. Artificial Intelligence and Democracy: the Impact of Disinformation, Social Bots and Political Targeting. Delphi Interdisciplinary Review of Emerging Technologies. 2019, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 66-71. CrossRef
3. CHOI, H. The Modern Online Democracy: An Evaluation of Social Media's Ability to Facilitate Political Discourse. Technium Social Sciences Journals. 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 277-289.
4. CINELLI, M. et al. Echo chambers on social media: a comparative analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2020, Vol. 118, No. 9. Cited from: CHOI, H. The Modern Online Democracy: An Evaluation of Social Media's Ability to Facilitate Political Discourse. Technium Social Sciences Journals. 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 277-289.
5. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the European democracy action plan, 2020, COM(2020) 790 final.
6. CULLIFORD, E. - SHEPARDSON, D. - PAUL, K. Twitter permanently suspends Trump's account, cites "incitement of violence" risk. In: Reuters [online]. 9.1.2021 [cit. 2023-02-20]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-twitter-idUSKBN29D355.
7. DENEMARK, J. Psychologický demokratický deficit Evropské unie a možná role právníků [Psychological Democratic Deficit and Possible Role of the Lawyers]. Právník. 2022, Vol. 161, No. 11, pp. 1063-1083.
8. DI PORTO, F. - GROTE, T. - VOLPI, G. - INVERNIZZI, R. "I See Something You Don't See": a Computational Analysis of the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act. Stanford Computational Antitrust. 2021, Vol. I, pp. 84-116. CrossRef
9. Explanatory memorandum of Commission to the Proposal for DSA, COM(2020) 825 final, 2020/0361 (COD).
10. FOLLESDAL, A. - HIX, S. Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: a Response to Majone and Moravcsik. Journal of Common Markets Studies. 2006, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 533- 562. CrossRef
11. HABERMAS, J Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürglerlichen Gesellschaft. Luchterhand: Darmstadt and Neuwied, 1980.
12. HABERMAS, J. Democracy in Europe: Why the Development of the EU into a Transnational Democracy Is Necessary and How It Is Possible. European Law Journal. 2015, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 546-557. CrossRef
13. HABERMAS, J. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: MA, The MIT Press, 1996. CrossRef
14. HALBERSTAM, Y. - KNIGHT, B. Homophily, group size, and the diffusion of political information in social networks: Evidence from Twitter. Journal of public economics. 2016, Vol. 143, pp. 73-88. Cited from: CHOI, H. The Modern Online Democracy: An Evaluation of Social Media's Ability to Facilitate Political Discourse. Technium Social Sciences Journals. 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 277-289. CrossRef
15. HARRISON, S. - BRUTER, M. Media and identity: the paradox of legitimacy and the making of European citizens. In: RISSE, T. (ed.). European Public Spheres [online]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 169-198 [cit. 2023-02-18]. Available at: https://doi-org.ezproxy.is.cuni.cz/10.1017/CBO9781139963343.
16. HOUSKA, O. in DENEMARK, J. (ed.). Vztah Čechů k Evropské unii an existence demokratického deficitu [The Relationship of Czech citizens to the European union and existence of democratic deficit] [epizoda podcastu]. In: zEvropy [online]. [cit. 2023-02-20]. Available at: https://open.spotify.com/episode/70FIONKyJ1DQtNvSsAbmSw.
17. KERMER, J. E. - NIJMEIJER, R. A. Identity and European Public Spheres in the Context of Social Media and Information Disorder. Media and Communication. 2020, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 28-39. CrossRef
18. KOOPMANS, R. How advanced is the Europeanization of public spheres: Comparing German and European structures of political communication. In: RISSE, T. (ed.). European Public Spheres [online]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 53-83 [cit. 2023-02-18]. Available at: https://doi-org.ezproxy.is.cuni.cz/10.1017/CBO9781139963343. CrossRef
19. LONGO, M. No ode to joy?: reflections on the European Union's legitimacy. International Politics [online]. 2011, Vol. 48, pp. 667-690 [cit. 2023-02-18]. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/ip.2011.29. CrossRef
20. MANHEIM, K. - KAPLAN, L. Artificial Intelligence: Risks to Privacy and Democracy. Yale Journal of Law and Technology. 2019, Vol. 21, pp. 106-188.
21. MCCOMBIE, S. - UHLMANN, A. J. - MORRISON, S. The US 2016 presidential election & Russia's troll farms. Intelligence and National Security. 2020, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 95-114. CrossRef
22. MCNAIR, B. Journalism and Democracy: an Evaluation of the Political Public Sphere. London and New York: Routledge, 2000. Cited from RISSE, T. (ed.). European Public Spheres [online]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014 [cit. 2023-02-18]. Available at: https://doi-org.ezproxy.is.cuni.cz/10.1017/CBO9781139963343.
23. MCNAMARA, K. R. When the Banal Becomes Political: the European Union in the Age of Populism. Polity. 2019, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 678-688. CrossRef
24. MERRILL, J. B. - OREMUS, W. Five points for anger, one for "like": How Facebook's formula fostered rage and misinformation. The Washington Post [online]. 26.10.2021 [cit. 2023-02-20]. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/26/facebook-angry-emoji-algorithm/.
25. MORAVCSIK, A. The Myth of Europe's "Democratic Deficit". Intereconomics [online]. 2008, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp. 331-340 [cit. 2023-02-18]. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/2829768/The_myth_of_Europes_democratic_deficit.
26. Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the transparency and targeting of political advertising, 2021, COM(2021) 731 final, 2021/0381 (COD).
27. Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the Council on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector (Digital Markets Act), 15 December 202, COM(2020) 842 final, 2020/0374 (COD).
28. Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the Council on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 200/31/EC, 15 December 2020, COM(2020) 825 final, 2020/0361 (COD).
29. RADU, G. Russian Influence in European Policies. Research and Science Today. 2018, Vol. 2, No. 16, pp. 49-54.
30. SCHWARTZ, P. M. Privacy and Democracy in Cyberspace. Vanderbilt Law Review. 1999, Vol. 52, No. 6, pp. 1609-1702.
31. SUNSTEIN, C. R. Is Social Media Good or Bad for Democracy. Sur - International Journal on Human Rights. 2018, Vol. 15, No. 27, pp. 83-89.
32. The opinion of advocate general Rantos, C-252/21, Meta Platforms Inc. et al. v. Bundeskartellamt et al., ECLI:EU:C:2022:704.
Strengthening the European Union by Regulating the Digital Single Market is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
230 x 157 mm
periodicity: 4 x per year
print price: 65 czk
ISSN: 0323-0619
E-ISSN: 2336-6478
