Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diversity, Fake News and Hate Speech: The German Response to Algorithmic Regulation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Algorithmic Distribution of News

Part of the book series: Palgrave Global Media Policy and Business ((GMPB))

  • 466 Accesses

Abstract

Germany is taking a pioneering role both in Europe and across the world when it comes to digital platform regulation. This chapter examines two new German laws, the Interstate Media Treaty and the Network Enforcement Act. I explore the development of the laws and analyse their different regulatory objectives. While the former aims to safeguard diversity of opinion, the latter tries to protect individuals from hate crime, including certain forms of hate speech, criminally punishable fake news and other unlawful content. The article follows an interdisciplinary approach, combining communication studies research with legal analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    An offer is a programme and telemedium refers to all electronic information and communications services that are not telecommunication services.

  2. 2.

    Article 93 MStV states:

    “(1) Providers of media intermediaries shall, in order to ensure diversity of opinion, keep the following information easily perceptible, directly accessible and constantly available:

    1. the criteria that determine whether a content is accessible to a media intermediary and whether a content remains with a media intermediary

    2. the central criteria of an aggregation, selection and presentation of contents and their weighting including information about the functionality of the algorithms used in an understandable language.

    (2) Providers of media intermediaries who have a thematic specialisation shall be obliged to make this specialisation perceptible through the design of their offerings. Art. 91 para. 2 No. 2 shall remain unaffected.

    (3) Changes to the criteria mentioned in para. 1 and the orientation pursuant to para. 2 shall be made immediately perceptible in the same way.

    (4) Providers of media intermediaries offering social networks shall ensure that telemedia within the meaning of Article 18 para. 3 are labelled”.

  3. 3.

    Art. 94 Interstate Media Treaty states:

    “(1) In order to safeguard diversity of opinions, media intermediaries may not discriminate against journalistically and editorially designed offers on whose perceptibility they have a particularly high influence.

    (2) Discrimination within the meaning of paragraph 1 shall be deemed to exist if, without objectively justified reason, the criteria to be published pursuant to Art. 93 paragraphs 1 to 3 are systematically deviated from in favour of or to the disadvantage of a particular offer or if these criteria directly or indirectly and systematically hinder offers in an unfair manner.

    (3) An infringement can only be asserted by the affected provider of journalistic and editorial content with the competent state media authority. In obvious cases, the violation can also be prosecuted by the competent state media authority ex officio”.

  4. 4.

    An insult, which German law punishes under § 185 StGB is an attack on the honour of another person by manifesting disrespect for that person.

  5. 5.

    Defamation is an offence of honour in which, in contrast to the value judgement in the case of an insult, the assertion and public dissemination of defamatory facts are punishable.

  6. 6.

    In German criminal law, slander means that someone makes defamatory allegations about a person even though he knows that the allegations are untrue.

  7. 7.

    The main issue was the first article of the “Loi Avia”: according to it, platforms only have an hour to remove terrorist material or child pornography and other “manifestly unlawful” content, otherwise they face a heavy fine. The court first underlined the role of information intermediaries in today’s society: Given “the widespread development of online communication services for the public” and “the importance of these services for participation in democratic life”, freedom of expression “includes the freedom to access and express oneself in these services”. According to the judges, this right is disproportionately restricted by the “Loi Avia”, because the sovereignty of interpretation over the obvious illegality of a content is left to the platforms.

References

  • Arendt, Florian, Mario Haim, and Julia Beck. 2019. Fake News, Warnhinweise und perzipierter Wahrheitsgehalt: Zur unterschiedlichen Anfälligkeit für Falschmeldungen in Abhängigkeit von der politischen Orientierung [engl.: Fake News, Warnings and Perceived Truthfulness: On the Different Susceptibility to False Reports Depending on Political Orientation]. Publizistik 64: 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-019-00484-4. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Auxier, Brooke E., and Jessica Vitak. 2019. Factors Motivating Customization and Echo Chamber Creation Within Digital News Environments. Social Media + Society 5: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119847506. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Bakshy, Eytan, Salomon Messing, and Lada Adamic. 2015. Exposure to Ideologically Diverse News and Opinion on Facebook. Science 348 (6239): 1130–1132. Accessed 9 June 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayer, Judit, Natalija Bitiukova, Petra Bárd, Alberto Alemanno, Judit Szakács, and Erik Uszkiewicz. 2019. Disinformation and Propaganda—Impact on the Functioning of the Rule of Law in the EU and Its Member States. European Union: Brussels https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/608864/IPOL_STU(2019)608864_EN.pdf.Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Beam, Michael A., Jeffrey T. Child, Myiah J. Hutchens, and Jay D. Hmielowski. 2018. Context Collapse and Privacy Management: Diversity in Facebook Friends Increases Online News Reading and Sharing. New Media & Society 20 (7): 2296–2314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817714790. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Binns, Amy. 2017. Fair Game? Journalists’ Experiences of Online Abuse. Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies 6(2): 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1386/ajms.6.2.183_1. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Bruns, Axel, Brenda Moon, Felix Münch, and Troy Sadkowsky. 2017. The Australian Twittersphere in 2016: Mapping the Follower/Followee Network. Social Media + Society 3 (4): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117748162. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Chen, Gina Masullo, and Lu Shuning. 2017. Online Political Discourse: Exploring Differences in Effects of Civil and Uncivil Disagreement in News Website Comments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 61(1): 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2016.1273922. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Cornils, Matthias. 2019. Die Perspektive der Wissenschaft: AVMD-Richtlinie, der 22. Rundfunkänderungsstaatsvertrag und der ‘Medienstaatsvertrag’ – Angemessene Instrumente für die Regulierungsherausforderungen? [engl.: The Scientific Perspective: AVMS Directive, the 22nd Interstate Broadcasting Amendment Treaty and the ‘Interstate Media Treaty’ - Appropriate Instruments for the Regulatory Challenges?]. Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht 2/2019: 89–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornils, Matthias. 2018. Vielfaltsicherung bei Telemedien [engl.: Diversity Assurance in Telemedia]. Archiv für Presserecht 5/2018: 377–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornils, Matthias, and Kerstin Liesem 2018. Stellungnahme zum Diskussionsentwurf eines Medienstaatsvertrages der Rundfunkkommission der Länder [engl.: Statement on the Discussion Draft of an Interstate Media Treaty of the Broadcasting Commission of the German States]. Mainzer Medieninstitut. https://Mainzer-Medieninstitut-Stellungnahme-zum-Medienstaatsvertrag-1.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • DeVito, Michael A. 2017. From Editors to Algorithms. Digital Journalism 5(6): 753–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2016.1178592. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Dogruel, Leyla, Birgit Stark, Dominique Facciorusso, and Kerstin Liesem (2020). Die Regulierung von Algorithmen aus Expertensicht. Transparenz und Diskriminierungsfreiheit – zur Vielfaltssicherung im neuen Medienstaatsvertrag [engl.: The Regulation of Algorithms from an Expert’s Point of View. Transparency and Non-discrimination to Ensure Diversity in the New Interstate Media Treaty]. Media Perspektiven 3/2020: 139–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer, Stephan, and Wolfgang Schulz. 2019. Schriftliche Stellungnahme zum Zweiten Diskussionsentwurf eines Medienstaatsvertrags der Länder vom Juli 2019 [engl.: Written Statement on the Second Discussion Draft of a Interstate Media Treaty of the German States of July 2019]. Hamburg: Leibnitz Institut für Medienforschung. Hans-Bredow-Institut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, Elizabeth, and Grant Blank. 2018. The Echo Chamber Is Overstated: the Moderating Effect of Political Interest and Diverse Media. Information, Communication & Society 21(5): 729–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Egelhofer, Jana Laura, and Sophie Lecheler. 2019. Fake News as a Two-Dimensional Phenomenon: a Framework and Research Agenda. Annals of the International Communication Association 43(2): 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1602782. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • European Commission. 2016. Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online. https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/eu-code-conduct-countering-illegal-hate-speech-online_en. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Haim, Mario, Andreas Graefe, and Hans-Bernd Brosius. 2018. Burst of the Filter Bubble? Effects of Personalization on the Diversity of Google News. Digital Journalism 6(3): 330–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1338145. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Hasebrink, Uwe, and Jutta Popp. 2006. Media Repertoires as a Result of Selective Media Use. a Conceptual Approach to the Analysis of Patterns of Exposure. Communications 31(3), 369–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegelich, Simon, and Morteza Shahrezaye. 2017. Disruptions to Political Opinion—Political Debate in the Age of Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles. Analysen & Argumente 253/2017: 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsueh, Mark, Kumar Yogeeswaran, and Sanna Malinen. 2015. ‘Leave Your Comment Below’: Can Biased Online Comments Influence Our Own Prejudicial Attitudes and Behaviors? Human Communication Research 41(4), 557–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12059. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Jaursch, Julian. 2019. Regulatory Reactions to Disinformation: How Germany and the EU Are Trying to Tackle Opinion Manipulation on Digital Platforms. https://www.stiftung-nv.de/sites/default/files/regulatorische_reaktionen_auf_desinformation.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Johnson, N. F., R. Leahy, N.J. Restrepo, N. Velasquez, M. Zheng, P. Manrique, P. Devkota, and S. Wuchty. 2019. Hidden Resilience and Adaptive Dynamics of the Global Online Hate Ecology. Nature 573 (7773): 261–265. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1494-7. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Jourová, Vera. 2019. Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online. Fourth Evaluation Confirms Self-Regulation Works. Factsheet February 2019. Brussels: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/code_of_conduct_factsheet_7_web.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Jungherr, Andreas. 2019. Desinformation: Konzepte, Identifikation, Reichweite und Effekte. In Was ist Desinformation? Betrachtung aus sechs wissenschaftlichen Perspektiven [engl.: Disinformation: Concepts, Identification, Reach and Effects. In What Is Disinformation? Consideration from Six Scientific Perspectives]. Ed. Landesanstalt für Medien (Lfm) NRW, 23–30. Düsseldorf: Landesanstalt für Medien NRW.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, Michael Bo. 2016. Goodbye politics, hello lifestyle. Changing News Topics in Tabloid, Quality and Local Newspaper Websites in the U.K. and Sweden from 2002 to 2012. Observatorio 10(4): 150–165. https://doi.org/10.15847/obsOBS1042016940. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Krafft, Tobias D., Michael Gamer, and Katharina A. Zweig. 2018. Wer sieht was? Personalisierung, Regionalisierung und die Frage nach der Filterblase in Googles Suchmaschine [engl.: What Did You See?—Personalization, Regionalization and the Question of the Filter Bubble in Google’s Search Engine]. Ed. Medienanstalt Berlin Brandenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kümpel, Anna Sophie, Diana Rieger. 2019. Wandel der Sprach- und Debattenkultur in sozialen Online-Medien. Ein Literaturüberblick zu Ursachen und Wirkungen von inziviler Kommunikation [engl.: Change of Language and Debate Culture in Social Online-Media: a Literature Review on the Causes and Effects of Uncivil Communication]. Ed. Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Jianing. 2020. Toward a Research Agenda on Political Misinformation and Corrective Information. Political Communication 37(1): 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1716499. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Liesem, Kerstin. 2019a. Regulierungsarchitektur für Medienintermdiäre: Interdisziplinäre Überlegungen zu den Entwürfen des Medienstaatsvertrages [engl: Regulation Architecture for Media Intermediaries: Interdisciplinary Reflections on the Drafts of the Interstate Media Treaty]. Archiv für Medienrecht und Medienwissenschaft (UFITA) 2/2019: 395–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liesem, Kerstin 2019b. Computational Propaganda: Einsatz von Algorithmen zur Beeinflussung der öffentlichen Meinung. In Der Mensch im digitalen Zeitalter [engl.: Computational Propaganda: Using Algorithms to Influence Public Opinion. In The Human Beeing in the digital Age]. Ed. Michael Litschka and Larissa Krainer, 183–197. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liesem, Kerstin 2019c. Opening the black Box ‘Algorithmus’—Die Medienintermediärsregulierung im Entwurf zum Medienstaatsvertrag [engl.: Opening the Black Box ‘Algorithm’—The Regulation of Media Intermediaries in the Draft of the Interstate Media Treaty]. Kommunikation und Recht (K&R) 11/2019: 687–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liesem, Kerstin. 2020a. Pionierleistung mit Signalwirkung. Die regulative Einhegung von Medienintermediären im Medienstaatsvertrag [engl.: Pioneering Achievment with a Signal Effect. the Regulatory Containment of Media Intermediaries in the Interstate Media Treaty]. Archiv für Presserecht 4/2020: 277–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liesem, Kerstin. 2020b. Medienrechtliche Risikovorsorge – Die Plattformregulierung im neuen Medienstaatsvertrag [engl.: Provision for risks under media law – The platform regulation in the new Interstate Media Treaty]. Evangelischer Pressedienst medien (epd medien) 36/2020: 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liesem, Kerstin 2020c. Neulandvermessung – Die Regulierung von Medienintermediären im neuen Medienstaatsvertrag [engl.: Surveying New Territories—The Regulation of Media Intermediaries in the New Interstate Media Treaty]. Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (ZUM) 5/2020: 377–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martens, Bertin, Luis Aguiar, Maria-Estrella Gomez-Herrera, and Frank Mueller-Langer. 2018. The digital transformation of news media and the rise of disinformation and fake news – An economic perspective”. JRC Digital Economy Working Paper, No. 2018–02. Seville: European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mchangama, Jacob and Joelle Fiss 2019. The Digital Berlin Wall: How Germany (Accidentally) Created a Prototype for Global Online Censorship. Justitia. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/publications/the-digital-berlin-wall-how-germany-accidentally-created-a-prototype-for-global-online-censorship/. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Meese, James, and Edward Hurcombe 2020. Regulating Misinformation. Policy Brief. Melbourne: RMIT University. apo-nid309357.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, Philipp, and Nora Denner. 2019. What can be done to counter Fake News? Eine Analyse anhand der Entstehungsbedingungen und Wirkweisen gezielter Falschmeldungen im Internet [engl.: What Can Be Done to Counter Fake News? an Analysis Based on the Conditions and Effects of Calculated False Reports on the Internet]. Gutachten im Auftrag der Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung für die Freiheit [engl.: Report Commissioned by the Friedrich-Naumann Foundation for Freedom] (2nd edition).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nechushtai, Efrat, and Set Lewis. 2019. What Kind of News Gatekeepers Do We Want Machines to Be? Filter Bubbles, Fragmentation, and the Normative Dimensions of Algorithmic Recommendations. Computers in Human Behavior 90: 298–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.043. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Papier, Jürgen. 2017. Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Grundrechtsschutz in der digitalen Gesellschaft. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW): 3025–3030.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pariser, Eli. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, Senja, and Hans Matthias Kepplinger. 2019. Coping with Audience Hostility. How Journalists’ Experiences of Audience Hostility Influence Their Editorial Decisions. Journalism Studies 20(16): 2422–2442. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2019.1599725. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Puschmann, Cornelius. 2018. Beyond the Bubble: Assessing the Diversity of Political Search Results. Digital Journalism 7(6) 824–843. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1539626. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Scharkow, Michael, Frank Mangold, Sebastian Stier, and Johannes Breuer. 2020. How Social Network Sites and Other Online Intermediaries Increase Exposure to News. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1918279117. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Schmid, Tobias, Laura Braam, and Julia Mischke. 2020. Gegen Meinungsmacht – Reformbedürfnisse aus Sicht eines Regulierers [engl.: Against Power of Opinion—Reform Needs from a Regulator’s Perspective]. Multimedia und Recht (MMR), 19–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobieraj, Sarah. 2018. Bitch, slut, skank, cunt: Patterned Resistance to Women’s Visibility in Digital Publics. Information, Communication & Society, 21(11): 1700–1714. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1348535. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Stark, Birgit, Daniel Stegmann, Melanie Magin, and Pascal Jürgens. 2020. Are Algorithms a Threat to Democracy? The Rise of Intermediaries: A Challenge for Public Discourse. Ed. Algorithm Watch Berlin/Brussels. https://algorithmwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Governing-Platforms-communications-study-Stark-May-2020-AlgorithmWatch.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Stark, Birgit, Melanie Magin, and Pascal Jürgens. 2018. Politische Meinungsbildung im Netz: Die Rolle der Informationsintermediäre [engl.: Political Opinion-Forming on the Internet: the Role of Information Intermediaries]. Archiv für Medienrecht und Medienwissenschaft (UFITA) (1): 103–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, Birgit, Melanie Magin, and Pascal Jürgens. 2017. Ganz meine Meinung? Informationsintermediäre und Meinungsbildung – Eine Mehrmethodenstudie am Beispiel von Facebook [engl.: Quite My Opinion? Information Intermediaries and Opinion Formation – a Mixed Methods Study Taking the Example of Facebook]. Ed. Landesmedienanstalt NRW: Düsseldorf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, Cass R. 2001. Echo Chambers: Bush v. Gore, Impeachment, and Beyond. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tandoc Jr, Edson C., Zheng Wei Lim, and Richard Ling. 2018. Defining “Fake News” A Typology of Scholarly Definitions. Digital Journalism 6(2): 137–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, Joshua, Andrew Guess, Pablo Barberá, Cristian Vaccari, Alexandra Siegel, Sergey Sanovich, Denis Stukal, and Brendan Nyhan. 2018. Social Media, Political Polarization and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=3144139. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Vos, Tim P., and Frank Michael Russell. 2019. Theorizing Journalism’s Institutional Relationships: An Elaboration of Gatekeeping Theory. Journalism Studies 20(16): 2331–2348. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2019.1593882. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Wang, Qun. 2020. Differentiation and De-differentiation: The Evolving Power Dynamics Between News Industry and Tech Industry. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020916809. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Wardle, Claire, and Hossein Derakhshan. 2017. Information Disorder. Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policymaking. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinaryframework-for-research/168076277c. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Winseck, Dwayne. 2020. Vampire Squids,‘the Broken Internet’ and Platform Regulation. Journal of Digital Media & Policy 11(3): 241–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, Frank, and Matthias Kohring. 2020. Mistrust, Disinforming News, and Vote Choice: A Panel Survey on the Origins and Consequences of Believing Disinformation in the 2017 German Parliamentary Election. Political Communication 37(2): 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1686095. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Zimmermann, Fabian, and Matthias Kohring. 2018. “Fake News” als aktuelle Desinformation,. Systematische Bestimmung eines heterogenen Begriffs [engl.: “Fake News” as Current Disinformation. Systematic Definition of a Heterogeneous Term]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft 66(4): 526–541. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2018-4-526.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law Department, Hessian University of Public Management and Security, Mühlheim/Main, Germany

    Kerstin Liesem

  2. Mühlheim/Main, Germany

    Kerstin Liesem

Authors
  1. Kerstin Liesem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kerstin Liesem .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    James Meese

  2. Department of Communication Studies and Multimedia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Sara Bannerman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Liesem, K. (2022). Diversity, Fake News and Hate Speech: The German Response to Algorithmic Regulation. In: Meese, J., Bannerman, S. (eds) The Algorithmic Distribution of News. Palgrave Global Media Policy and Business. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87086-7_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation