Social Structures – Page 4

Platforms under control? An expert opinion on the copyright aspects of the Digital Services Act

Social Structures

Author: Péter Mezei, Associate Professor of Law, University of Szeged, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences; adjunct professor (dosentti), University of Turku, Faculty of Law

Péter Mezei

Most of the European Union (EU) legislation on platforms was introduced in a period that we currently call “web 1.0”. During the early years of the internet, websites offered “read only” experience, rather than interactivity and user engagement. The early legislative acts in the USA and the EU have contributed to the emergence of brand-new business models. The platformisation – based on the safe harbours granted for (certain) service providers – has generated a brand new (“read/write”) internet culture, something we refer to as “web 2.0”. For a while, social media’s contribution to modern society was hailed as the new democratisation of life, but those sentiments have since then gone, partially due to platforms’ excessive content moderation practices.

Web 2.0 – coupled with rogue websites’ contribution to illegal end-user activities – have sparked criticism on a global scale. It took many years in Europe to come up with the necessary solutions to mitigate the negative consequences of the platform age. One of the magic keywords for these reforms was the so-called “value gap”, that is, the claim that platforms’ benefits from end-users’ activities is disproportionately greater than the fees they pay to rights holders. Furthermore, as data has become the “oil of our age”, an urgent need has arisen to regulate the collection, management and utility of information.

Judicial Review of Assessment of Need

Social Structures

Author: Mac MacLachlan, Co-Director of the Assisting Living and Learning (ALL) Institute, Professor of Psychology & Social Inclusion, Maynooth University and Clinical Lead for Disability Services, Irish Health Service (HSE)

Mac MacLachlan

On the 11^th March 2022, Justice Siobhan Phelan’s Judicial Review , was released which sought to address the grievances in two particular cases, and to interpret the intensions of the Disability Act (2005) regarding the Assessment of Need (AoN) process. I can make no comment on the particular cases, but I would rather comment on the broader issues touched upon in the decision and on Justice Phelan’s interpretation of the AoN process, while well intentioned and carefully considered, seems to me very problematic. While she refers to a related 2019 report from the ALL Institute on a closely related topic, the judgement will not help us address the challenges, which are certainly not unique to the Irish context.

The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the AoN was introduced to have a standardised and shorter assessment time, allowing for services that assist children and parents to be provided more quickly. It allowed for assessment continuing as part of routine clinical practice alongside services such as therapy, recognising that assessment is not a one-off event, and that people’s needs change over time. The SOP also allowed for the situation where, should a preliminary assessment not be sufficient to identify the need for services, then a more detailed assessment would follow. This is a pragmatic approach, to maximise the impact of available resources, as the Health Service Executive (HSE) is compelled to do under section 7 of the Health Act (2004): resources should be used in the “most beneficial, effective and efficient manner”.

The European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles: a proposed Guide for the Digital Transformation

Social Structures

Authors: Léa Urzel, PhD Researcher ERC Project DANCING, Assisting Living and Learning (ALL) Institute, Department of Law, Maynooth University and Matthew McKenna, PhD Researcher at Maynooth University’s ALL Institute, Research Funded through the Science Foundation of Ireland (SFI) Centre for Research Training in Advanced Networks for Sustainable Societies (ADVANCE CRT)

Léa Urzel & Matthew McKenna

Last Wednesday, 26 January 2022, the European Commission (the Commission) released a draft Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade (the Declaration) for the European Parliament and Council to discuss and eventually endorse. With this initiative, the Commission aims to provide a reference point for all involved in the European Union’s (EU) digital transformation and to guide policy makers as well as private actors working with new technologies.

Last week’s Declaration responds to calls from the Parliament to ensure strong consumer protection and the respect of fundamental rights and principles (e.g. non-discrimination, data protection, net neutrality) in approaching the EU’s digital transformation. It further builds on previous Council initiatives, including the Tallinn Declaration on eGovernment, the Berlin Declaration on Digital Society and Value-Based Digital Government, and the Lisbon Declaration – Digital Democracy with a Purpose. The draft Declaration also follows various Commission initiatives introduced in 2021 such as the Commission’s Communication on the Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade presented last March. It sets out its ‘vision, targets and avenues for a successful digital transformation of Europe in 2030’. In addition, the Commission proposed in September 2021, the Path to the Digital Decade, a governance framework to deliver the Digital Decade’s targets.

Election to the CRPD Committee: Some Insights from Behind the Scenes.

Social Structures

Author: Iryna Tekuchova, PhD Researcher, Department of Law, Maynooth University.

Iryna Tekuchova

“Being a human rights treaty body member is highly rewarding,” states the UN Handbook for Human Rights Treaty Body Members. It also mentions that the member of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the Committee) is expected to have “high moral character” and “recognized competence and experience in the field”. However, this document is silent about the fact that beyond these qualities and merits, the candidates to the Committee often have to face a rocky electoral path, which turns to be difficult for many. Being an expert in a field covered by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the CRPD) and having “high moral character” is not enough to have a real chance to be elected.

In 2020, I had the unique opportunity to coordinate the election campaign of one of my former colleagues in the Ukrainian organization for people with disabilities “Fight For Right”, who stood as the Ukrainian candidate to the Committee in the seventh election cycle. Looking back at the nomination and election campaign paths, which we have done, I can identify some tendencies and systematic challenges of these processes relevant for the candidates and the countries. Even though each candidate’s experience is unique and varies from State to State, some points of concern, incidental for Ukraine, might resonate with other countries and, thus, be subject to further analyses. In this blogpost, I would like to highlight four issues that may directly or indirectly influence the efficiency of the whole election process to the Committee.

Escaping Disciplinary Capture: Making our Health and Social Services Work Better

Social Structures

Authors: Kate Rochford, 3^rd Year Undergraduate Intern, Department of Psychology, Maynooth University & Mac MacLachlan, Co-Director of the Assisting Living and Learning (ALL) Institute, Maynooth University and Clinical Lead for Disability Services, Irish Health Service (HSE).

This figure illustrates the concept of disciplinary capture whereby one way of thinking (represented by one single text here) determines how people think about an issue. Like a whirlwind, it can often powerfully funnel thinking, ignoring the range of ideas available within the group, which otherwise may provide useful alternatives or additions to proposed actions. Image by Kate Rochford

Introduction
An interdisciplinary approach to research has become increasingly popular when dealing with different topics (Aboelela et al., 2007). Such an approach can offer a more comprehensive or holistic perspective and is most suited to addressing real-world complex issues (Repko et al., 2017). However, while interdisciplinary collaboration may be appealing in theory, it is often difficult in practice (Cummings and Kiesler, 2007). In that regard, we believe that the concept of ‘disciplinary capture’ can supplement an enhanced interdisciplinary approach. It can also help to transpose academic thinking into practice. Particularly, in relation to disability, and services for persons with disabilities, this concept can translate into more effective integration of services.

Disciplinary capture involves thinking about problems from only one perspective (Brister, 2016). Disciplinary capture can determine what sort of ideas, facts, interventions or causal explanations, are depicted as permissible. For instance, a disease-model approach to mental health may only accept pharmaceutical interventions as being legitimate for a range of mental health problems, while a more psychological, social or human rights approach may not accept this (MacLachlan et al, 2021). In this scenario, if proponents of the disease model are positioned in such a way that other professions are expected to be deferential towards them, then this is likely to inhibit truly interdisciplinary practice. Moreover, this can impede the empirical merit of such a position through the preclusion of an open discussion which would allow for full exploration of all the possible alternatives. The result may manifest in poorer decision-making processes and sub-optimal interventions.

Participation matters – Global Survey on involvement of persons with disabilities in public decision-making

Social Structures

Symposium

Click here for Audio Version

Author: Rebecca Daniel – PHD Student, Assisting Living and Learning (ALL) Institute, Department of Psychology, Maynooth University

The IDA Global Survey on political participation of Organisations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs) was launched earlier this year and will remain open until the end of 2021. It is conducted as part of a PhD research project undertaken at the ALL Institute and discussed below on the occasion of the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.

The human right to participation of persons with disabilities through their representative organisations is clearly stated in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Articles 4.3 (on participation of OPDs in implementation of the UNCRPD overall) and 33.3 (on participation of OPDs in national implementation and monitoring of the UNCRPD), as well as General Comment No 7 specify this right. As far as the United Nations (UN) are concerned, participation of OPDs is a crucial principle to be considered throughout the activities of the UN, in line with indicator 5 of the United Nations Disability Inclusion Strategy (UNDIS) on consultation of persons with disabilities.

However, as one of the most marginalised groups (compare e.g. WHO World Report on Disability, WHO – Disability and Health and United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction), persons with disabilities are in many ways excluded from public decision-making. Their full and effective participation in all decisions concerning their lives is yet to be realised (compare e.g. Bridging the Gap: The unsteady path, IDA: Increasingly Consulted but Not Yet Participating). Public programmes, policies, plans and projects, insofar as they consider participation, are all too often addressing members of civil society as beneficiaries or consumers of services instead of citizens (Andrea Cornwall).

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: