Dr. Pierre François Docquir:

I thank the Deputy for the questions. I will start by commenting on the funding. In our view, it is key to make sure the funding of the social media council does not undermine its independence. There are various possibilities for sources of funding. One is contributions from the social media platforms. After all, as they would also benefit from the service that the social media council would provide, they might as well incur part of the cost. Another source of funding, as for press councils, might be of a philanthropic origin. Another option that we discussed is that there might be a contribution from the future regulator, if the social media council itself has been contracted to operate an individual appeals mechanism on behalf of the regulator.

The Deputy’s second question points to the coexistence of different regulatory approaches. One is a statutory approach with laws and the possibility of courts imposing sanctions. The other model is voluntary compliance, which does not come with the strength of the law. At this particular stage of history, a combination of the two approaches to regulation of social media platforms might be effective. The danger with a legal regulatory approach is that with the risks of sanctions and fines, companies might at some point lawyer up. This might lead to long legal proceedings, before we can see the effect of regulation coming into practice. A voluntary compliance mechanism can be more flexible. It can offer a space which, in my most optimistic moments, I would call a "space for co-learning", of what it means for social media platforms to be regulated externally. Recognising a social media council in the law might prove to be an interesting incentive for social media platforms to join the social media council and to play fairly within that voluntary compliance mechanism. That is the sense of our proposal.