Abstract
In order to protect minors from the risks associated with exposure to content which is deemed unsuitable (e.g. sexually implicit images, violence, offensive language) and potentially harmful, many countries have adopted systems of labelling or content classification. The purpose is to provide parents and carers with reliable and useful information so that they can make informed and well-balanced decisions about which content is appropriate for their children. This chapter identifies a number of key issues related to the development of labelling systems for the online and social networking environment, such as the rationale behind labelling, the object of the labelling systems and the types of labelling that could be used. Focusing mainly on policy documents and proposals at the European level (European Union and Council of Europe), references are made to specific national systems to illustrate good practices or recently developed schemes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Cf. see also: Department of Homeland Security and the European Commission (2012). Joint declaration to make the Internet safer for kids, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-881_en.htm.
- 2.
For more information, see Lievens et al. (2011). State of the art on regulatory trends in media. Identifying whether, what, how and who to regulate in social media, available at http://emsoc.be/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/State-of-the-art-on-regulatory-trends-in-media.Identifying-whether-what-how-and-who-to-regulate-in-social-media.pdf.
- 3.
Note that in certain systems, ratings are also used to prohibit access to certain types of content, for instance certain film classification systems include access restrictions for movie theatres.
- 4.
Cf. for instance, theories such as the ‘forbidden fruit effect’ or the ‘tainted fruit effect’: Bushman and Stack (1996). Forbidden fruit versus tainted fruit: effects of warning labels on attraction to television violence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2(3), 207–226; Gosselt et al. (2012). Effects of media ratings on children and adolescents: A Litmus test of the forbidden fruit effect. Journal of Communication, 61, 1161–1178.
- 5.
More information is available at http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/Home.aspx.
- 6.
For instance, the Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA), a self-regulatory initiative for online content, expected content providers to label the content of their own website according to the suitability for different groups of online users (for instance, minors). ICRA created a rating system based on the vocabulary that functions on PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection), a standardised machine-readable format for describing content in an HTML file. One of the reasons given for the failure of ICRA is that companies were not willing to rate their own content. See, for instance, Archer (2009). ICRAfail, a lesson for the future. http://philarcher.org/icra/ICRAfail.pdf. He states that most members of ICRA did not even label their websites.
- 7.
http://www.yourateit.eu. See also the Miracle project: http://www.miracle-label.eu/.
- 8.
- 9.
Internal document, available with the author.
- 10.
Internal document, available with the author.
- 11.
Internal document, available with the author.
- 12.
In September 2013 a pilot started with Italian company Mediaset for their UGC platform. Also, the European Commission has invited a number of Internet companies to investigate whether You Rate It can be an effective classification tool for non-professional content (http://www.kijkwijzer.nl/now-you-can-rate-it-/page18-0-258.html).
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
Defined as “a service as defined by Articles 49 and 50 of the Treaty which is under the editorial responsibility of a media service provider and the principal purpose of which is the provision of programmes in order to inform, entertain or educate, to the general public by electronic communications networks within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/21/EC”.
- 16.
The AVMS Directive is currently under review. A first public consultation was closed in September 2015. See http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/public-consultation-directive-201013eu-audiovisual-media-services-avmsd-media-framework-21st.
- 17.
In theory it would be possible to develop a quality label just for minors, just for privacy, etc., but in our opinion, it would be very complex for users if this would be the case.
- 18.
A step beyond certification is the process of accreditation which adds an overarching layer to certification in order to ensure the supervision and quality of performance of certification bodies. In relation to the marketing of products and the process of repealing, the European Union adopted a Regulation in which it sets out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance: Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93.
- 19.
Another industry initiative, the ICT Coalition for Children Online, also clarifies that members should provide a clear and simple process whereby users can report content (or behaviour). See http://www.ictcoalition.eu/.
- 20.
For instance Jensen et al. (2005). Privacy practices of Internet users: Self-reports versus observed behaviour. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(1–2), 203–227; Gordon (2003). Privacy: A study of attitudes and behaviours in US, UK and EU Information Security Professionals. Symantec Security Response, 12. http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/reference/privacy.attitudes.behaviors.pdf, Grimmelman (2009). Saving Facebook. Iowa Law Review, 94, 1182.
- 21.
However, contrary to these studies, a special Euro barometer survey found that almost 6 out of 10 internet users usually read privacy statements and that the majority of those who read them adapt their behaviour on the Internet: European Commission (2011). Special Eurobarometer 359, Attitudes on Data Protection and Electronic Identity in the European Union, Report. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_359_en.pdf.
- 22.
See for instance, European Parliament and Council (2000). Directive 2000/13/EC of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, OJ 06.05.2000, L 109, 29; Council (1967). Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, OJ 16.08.1967, L 196, 1; European Parliament and Council (2010). Directive 2010/30/EU of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products, OJ 18.06.2010, L 153, 1.
- 23.
See for instance Van Alsenoy (2012). SPION Project, D6. Legal requirements for privacy-friendly model privacy policies (not published).
- 24.
See for instance the Terms of Facebook: “If you are a resident of or have your principal place of business in the US or Canada, this Statement is an agreement between you and Facebook, Inc. Otherwise, this Statement is an agreement between you and Facebook Ireland Limited. References to “us,” “we,” and “our” mean either Facebook, Inc. or Facebook Ireland Limited, as appropriate.”
- 25.
Article 1 (2) e-Commerce Directive: “Any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services”,
- 26.
The other two situations that are covered by the “safe harbour” provisions are caching and mere conduit. We will not discuss these situations as they are less relevant for SNSs.
- 27.
Article 15, e-Commerce Directive. However, Article 15 does not affect the possibility of injunctions of different kinds, such as orders by courts or administrative authorities requiring the termination or prevention of any infringement, including the removal of illegal information or the disabling of access to it: Recital 45 and 47. Article 12 para. 3, article 13 para.2 and article 14 para. 3 e-Commerce Directive.
- 28.
Article 16 of the e-Commerce Directive does encourage the development of codes of conduct for the protection of minors and human dignity, but does not impose an obligation to do so.
- 29.
For a detailed overview, cf. Lievens (2010). Protecting children in the digital era: The use of alternative regulatory instruments. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 189 et seq.
References
Aiken, D. K., & Boush, D. M. (2006). Trustmarks, objective-source ratings, and implied investments in advertising: Investigating online trust and the context-specific nature of internet signals. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 308–323.
Archer, P. (2009). ICRAfail, a lesson for the future. http://philarcher.org/icra/ICRAfail.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2013.
Australian Law Reform Commission. (2012, February). Classification – Content regulation and convergent media, Final report. http://www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/publications/final_report_118_for_web.pdf. Accessed 7 Mar 2012.
Balboni, P. (2006). Model for an adequate liability system for trustmark organisations, privacy and security issues. Information Technology, 1, 97–111.
Balboni, P. (2008). Trustmarks – Third-party liability of trustmark organisations in Europe. PhD dissertation, University of Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Bushman, B. J., & Stack, A. D. (1996). Forbidden fruit versus tainted fruit: Effects of warning labels on attraction to television violence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2(3), 207–226.
Byron, T. (2008). Safer children in a digital world: The report of the Byron review. http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/s/safer%20children%20in%20a%20digital%20world%20the%202008%20byron%20review.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2013.
Coalition to make the Internet a better place for kids. (2011). Statement of purpose. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/docs/ceo_coalition/ceo_coalition_statement.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2013.
Coalition to make the Internet a better place for kids. (2012). Action 3, wider use of content classification systems, Progress report http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/docs/ceo_coalition/classif_progress_report.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2013.
Council of Europe (Committee of Ministers). (2009). Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on measures to protect children against harmful content and behaviour and to promote their active participation in the new information and communications environment. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1470045&Site=CM. Accessed 10 July 2013.
Council of Europe (Committee of Ministers). (2012). Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)4 on the protection of human rights with respect to social networking services. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1929453&Site=CM. Accessed 23 Jan 2013.
DG for Internal Policies. (2012). Policy department economic and scientific policy. Study: A Pan-European trustmark for e-commerce: Possibilities and opportunities. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/hu/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=75183. Accessed 10 July 2013.
Dutch Media Act. (2008, December 29). Act of 29 December 2008 to establish a new Media Act (Wet van 29 december 2008 tot vaststelling van een nieuwe Mediawet (Mediawet 2008)).
ECJ. (2008). Productores de música de España (Promusicae) v telefónica de España SAU, C-275/06.
ECJ. (2011). Scarlet extended v SABAM, C-70/10.
European Commission. (1996). Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, illegal and harmful content on the Internet, COM(96) 487 final. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:1996:0487:FIN:en:PDF. Accessed 10 July 2013.
European Commission. (2001). European Governance – A white paper, COM (2001) 428 final, 25.07.2001. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2013.
European Commission. (2002). Communication action plan ‘Simplifying and improving the regulatory environment’; COM (2002) 278 final, 05.06.2002. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2002:0278:FIN:en:PDF. Accessed 10 July 2013.
European Commission. (2011). Special Eurobarometer 359, attitudes on data protection and electronic identity in the European Union, Report. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_359_en.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2013.
European Commission. (2012). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, European strategy for a better Internet for children. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0196:FIN:EN:PDF. Accessed 10 July 2013.
European Parliament and Council. (2000). Directive 2000/31/EC of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular economic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce), OJ 17.07.2000, L 178, 1.
European Parliament and Council. (2005). Directive (EC)2005/29 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council [2005] OJ L149/22 (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive), OJ 11.06.2005, L 149/22.
European Parliament and Council. (2010). Directive 2010/13/EU of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive), OJ 15.04.2010, L 95, 1.
European Social Networking Task Force. (2009). Safer social networking principles for the EU. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/sn_principles.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2013.
European Parliament, Council and Commission. (2003). Inter-institutional agreement on better law-making, OJ 31.12.2003. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2003:321:0001:0001:EN:PDF. Accessed 10 July 2013.
Golan, E., Kuchler, F., & Mitchell, L. (2001). Economics of food labelling. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24, 117–184.
Gordon, S. (2003). Privacy: A study of attitudes and behaviours in US, UK and EU Information Security Professionals. Symantec Security Response, 12. http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/reference/privacy.attitudes.behaviors.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2013.
Gosselt, J., Van Hoof, J., & De Jong, M. (2012). Media rating systems: Do they work? Shop floor compliance with age restrictions in The Netherlands. Mass Communication and Society, 15(3), 335–359.
Grimmelman, J. (2009). Saving Facebook. Iowa Law Review, 94, 1182.
Helberger, N. (2011). Diversity label: Exploring the potential and limits of a transparency approach to media diversity. Journal of Information Policy, 1, 337–369.
Howells, G. (2005). The potential and limits of consumer empowerment by information. Journal of Law and Society, 32(3), 349–370.
IDate, TNO, & IViR (Helberger, N., Guibault, L., Janssen, E., van Eijk, N., Angelopoulos, C., van Hoboken, J., Swart, E., de Munck, S., Limonard, S., Poel, M., Kool, L., Le Borgne-Bachschmidt, F., Girieud, S., & Leiba, M.). (2008). User-created-content: Supporting a participative information society – Final report. http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/233. Accessed 5 Feb 2015.
Jensen, C., Potts, C., & Jensen, C. (2005). Privacy practices of Internet users: Self-reports versus observed behaviour. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(1–2), 203–227.
Kijkwijzer.nl. (2015). 91% ouders gebruikt Kijkwijzer. http://www.kijkwijzer.nl/91-ouders-gebruikt-kijkwijzer/page18-0-409.html. Accessed 1 Feb 2016.
Latzer, M., Just, N., & Saurwein, F. (2013). Self –and co –regulation. Evidence, legitimacy and governance choice. In E. P. Monroe, S. G. Verhulst, & L. Morgan (Eds.), Routledge handbook of media law (pp. 373–397). Oxon: Routledge.
Lievens, E. (2010). Protecting children in the digital era: The use of alternative regulatory instruments. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Lievens, E., Valcke, P., & Valgaeren, P. J. (2011). State of the art on regulatory trends in media. Identifying whether, what, how and who to regulate in social media. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/350852/1/EMSOC_ICRI_D+1+2+1_2011.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2013.
Livingstone, S., Olafsson, K., O’Neill, B., & Donoso, V. (2012). EU Kids Online: Towards a better Internet for children. http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20III/Reports/EUKidsOnlinereportfortheCEOCoalition.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2013.
Luth, H. A. (2010). Behavioural economics in consumer policy, the economic analysis of standard terms in consumer contracts revisited. PhD thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
McDonald, A., & Cranor, L. F. (2008). The cost of reading privacy policies. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society. 2008 Privacy Year in Review issue. http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/readingPolicyCost-authorDraft.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2013.
NICAM. (2011). Jaarverslag 2011. http://www.kijkwijzer.nl/upload/zijbalk1/59_Nicam2011.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2013.
Nikken, P., Jansz, J., & Schouwstra, H. (2007). Parents’ interest in videogame ratings and content descriptors in relation to game mediation. European Journal of Communication, 22, 315–336.
Rae, A., Robert, P., & Hausen, H.-L. (1995). Software evaluation for certification: Principles, practice and legal liability. London: McGraw Hill Book Company.
Reding, V. (2006). Freedom of the media, effective co-regulation and media literacy: Cornerstones for an efficient protection of minors in the European Union, speech at ICRA round table Brussels ‘Mission Impossible’, Brussels. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-06-374_en.htm?locale=en. Accessed 10 July 2013.
Safer Internet Forum. (2012). Wim Bekkers (NICAM), Brussels.
Valcke, P., Stevens, D., Lievens, E., & Werkers, E. (2008). Audiovisual media services in the EU: Next generation approach or old wine in new barrels? Communications & Strategies, 71, 103–118.
Valkenburg, P., Beentjes, H., Nikken, P., & Tan, E. (2002). Kijkwijzer: The Dutch rating system for audiovisual productions. Communications, 27(1), 79–102.
Van Alsenoy, B. (2012). SPION project, D6. Legal requirements for privacy-friendly model privacy policies (not published).
Van den Berg, B., & van der Hof, S. (2012). What happens to my data? First Monday, 17(7). http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4010/3274. Accessed 10 July 2013.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wauters, E., Lievens, E., Valcke, P. (2016). Empowering Children Through Labelling in Social Networks: Illusion or Solution?. In: Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., Vanderhoven, E., Haers, J., Segaert, B. (eds) Youth 2.0: Social Media and Adolescence. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27893-3_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27893-3_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27891-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27893-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)