Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 37, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

“(1A) An accredited journalist or representative of a registered Non-Government Organisation who applies to An Coimisiún under Article 40(8) to be designated as a vetted researcher may be deemed to have met the designation conditions if they can reasonably demonstrate that their access to data as a vetted researcher would be in the public interest.”.

This amendment seeks to make accredited journalists and representatives of registered NGOs eligible for the status of vetted researcher if they can meet a clear test, which is to prove that their access to data as a vetted researcher would be in the public interest.

I have read the regulation and am aware of the strict definition of "vetted researcher" within the regulation text. There are clear conditions attached that require a person to be a member of an academic institution and so on. This is one of the few small criticisms I will make of the regulation. I highlighted that the codes of conduct for accessibility in the regulation should be compulsory. I also highlight that the eligibility for the status of vetted researcher should have been wider. When we think of the important role that journalists and whistleblowers have played in helping us to understand the abuses of these very large online platforms, we can look to the examples of Cambridge Analytica and similar cases, and it is disappointing that we do not seek to empower that role. I raise again the leaked documents in Australia that revealed Facebook executives talking about their ability to manipulate children to identify when they are feeling worthless. Without investigative journalism, we may never have uncovered any of these scandals. It is welcome that the regulation establishes a system of mandated data access and scrutiny but it is a shame that these powers of scrutiny have not been extended to journalists and, indeed, to civil society actors who also hold platforms to account for their practices.

I am aware that the Minister of State has said he will not accept the amendments and that this amendment in particular would contradict the wording of the regulation and the definition of "vetted researcher" that is out there. I think, however, it is important that we acknowledge a missed opportunity to allow journalists to scrutinise the data practices of large platforms. Indeed, this omission will only benefit large platforms and enable them to continue to conceal their bad practices. While academic scrutiny is important, journalistic scrutiny differs in one key way, which is that its aim is to uncover wrongdoing. Without that impetus to uncover wrongdoing, I fear the role of vetted researcher will not be as powerful as it could be.

I will briefly speak to amendments Nos. 24 and 25, which are Senator Malcolm Byrne's amendments. I support the first part of amendment No. 24 which seeks to grant an applicant for vetted researcher status a right of appeal in the event of being denied the status. This needs to be reasonable and in line with the other appeal mechanisms in the Bill. However, I have some concerns with the rest of amendment No. 24 and with amendment No. 25, which seeks to grant very large online platforms an equal right of appeal on a person's application to become a vetted researcher. In other words, very large platforms would be able to see an academic's application for vetted research status and submit an objection to that application. I feel that would be an inappropriate power to grant very large platforms and one which could be open to abuse. We can easily envision a scenario where platforms maintain a watchlist of academics who are critical of the practices of online platforms or who have previously published incriminating research in relation to those platforms. We could see platforms systematically trying to block the research applications of these academics, which would be completely at odds with the spirit and letter of the regulation. It provides for mandated data accessing scrutiny precisely because critical academics have the competencies and expertise to uncover bad practices by platforms where many others cannot due to the technical nature of these data practices. It would be highly inappropriate to grant platforms a way to block this scrutiny. That would be entirely at odds with the spirit of the regulation. Without academics, our understanding of these platforms would be far poorer.Shoshana Zuboff, who wrote The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, and similar academics have advanced our understanding of the abuses of these platforms. It would be unacceptable to see a scenario where such academics could be shut out. I look forward to hearing Senator Byrne's reasoning for his amendments.

Amendment No. 26 simply strengthens the time that a vetted researcher or trusted flagger has to appeal the revocation of his or her status from 14 day to 28 days.