Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will direct my questions to Mr. Ó Broin. It is important for committee members to be very clear. The Digital Services Act does not deal with elections. Elections are the exclusive preserve of member states. Therefore, if I understand it correctly, the Digital Services Act provides the basic set of rules that should operate around digital transparency and accountability across the EU. However, because each electoral process is different, every member state is absolutely within its rights if it wants to set a different, higher or specific set of requirements during elections. I agree with Deputies Higgins and McAuliffe. I would much prefer it if it was more than just the four weeks when it comes to the financing. We agree on that.

Rather than, as Mr. Ó Broin's statement disingenuously suggests, people having to choose between violating Irish law or violating EU law, because I would hope Facebook never chooses to violate any law, there would be compliance with both sets of laws - the general Digital Services Act as it applies in ordinary times and, in any individual member state, any specific additional requirements the legislators in that jurisdiction feel are necessary to protect the integrity of their state. Just so we are clear, it is important for people to understand that the Digital Services Act does not actually deal with elections.

On the issue of microtargeting, the issue is not geographical targeting, just to go back to Deputy Cian O'Callaghan's point. It is data mining and the use of it without the knowledge of the people who are being targeted with the advertising. For example, when I get microtargeted by Amazon, it is on the basis of the data it has mined from whatever books I have viewed and browsed on Amazon. I have never knowingly consented to that data mining or indeed Facebook's use of that. Obviously, when I signed the 75-page consent document when I signed up to Facebook, there was implied consent, but there are all sorts of problems with that. That is why, for example, the European Data Protection Supervisor has argued for action on this and therefore greater scrutiny and possible banning. I would be interested in Mr. Ó Broin's view on that bit of it because I do not think anybody is talking about the geographical targeting of ads.

In Mr. Ó Broin's comments on page three of annexe 8, my reading of what he is proposing in terms of the suggested change to head 122 is that Facebook would have no responsibility for ensuring those who are advertising during an election, and from which Facebook is profiting, are legally compliant. All it would have is the responsibility, through a point of contact, to share information with the regulator and its job would be to enforce compliance. Will Mr. Ó Broin confirm that that is his position.

Some important points were made in our previous session about changes to the way in which online operators operate and the kinds of tools that are at their disposal. There was an interesting article in The New York Timesin December of last year that mentioned Facebook withdrawing what was referred to as its "news ecosystem quality", or NEQ, which is an algorithm for prioritising more informed and reliable sources rather than less informed and reliable sources, which was in train during the election and withdrawn afterwards. One of the big issues here is how we all will know if new tools are introduced or withdrawn and how they are captured. They are also particularly relevant to electoral integrity. What transparency mechanisms does Mr. Ó Broin propose in respect of that?