Rainer Rehak (Weizenbaum Institute)
Al Narrative Breakdown. A Critical Assessment of Power and Promise
Abstract: This article sets off for an exploration of the still evolving discourse surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) in the wake of the release of ChatGPT. It scrutinizes the pervasive narratives that are shaping the societal engagement with AI, spotlighting key themes such as agency and decision-making, autonomy, truthfulness, knowledge processing, prediction, general purpose, neutrality and objectivity, apolitical optimization, sustainability game-changer, democratization, mass unemployment, and the dualistic portrayal of AI as either a harbinger of societal utopia or dystopia. Those narratives are analysed critically based on insights from critical computer science, critical data and algorithm studies, from STS, data protection theory, as well as from the philosophy of mind and semiotics. To properly analyse the narratives presented, the article first delves into a historical and technical contextualisation of the AI discourse itself. The article then introduces the notion of “Zeitgeist AI” to critique the imprecise and misleading application of the term “AI” across various societal sectors. Then, by discussing common narratives with nuance, the article contextualises and challenges often assumed socio-political implications of AI, uncovering in detail and with examples the inherent political, power infused and value-laden decisions within all AI applications. Concluding with a call for a more grounded engagement with AI, the article carves out acute problems ignored by the narratives discussed and proposes new narratives recognizing AI as a human-directed tool necessarily subject to societal governance. Bio: Rainer Rehak is part of the research groups “Digitalization, Sustainability, and Participation” and “Technology, Power, and Domination”at the Weizenbaum Institute for the Networked Society, Berlin, he is an associated researcher at the Berlin Social Science Center (WZB) and is currently pursuing his PhD on systemic IT security and societal data protection at the TU Berlin. He studied computer science and philosophy in Berlin and Hong Kong and has been working on the implications of the computerization of society for over 15 years. His research fields include technology impact assessment, collective data protection, systemic IT security, state hacking, computer science and ethics, fictions of technology, digitization and sustainability, convivial and democratic digital technology, epistemics of automation, digital (de-)colonialism, and the implications and limits of AI systems. He also publishes regularly in non-scientific outlets and is an expert witness for parliaments (e.g., the German Bundestag) and courts (e.g., the German Constitutional Court). He is co-chair of the German NGO “Computer Professionals for Peace and Societal Responsibility” (FIfF). Together with other digital policy and environmental organizations, he initiated the “Bits & Bäume” conference series for digitization and sustainability. |
Burcu Baykurt (University of Massachusetts Amherst)
Google Urbanism: From Infrastructural Control to Growing Bit by Bit
Abstract: This talk examines Google’s evolving role in the “digital growth machine” through two urban-tech initiatives: Google Fiber and Sidewalk Labs. It traces how the company positions itself as both a platform and an infrastructure, cultivating partnerships with local governments while using cities as test-beds for experimentation. I argue that Google’s urban-tech power is neither fixed nor easily defined; the company purposefully remains ambiguous to continually test, pivot, and invest in new ventures. Using Google as a case study, the talk develops a broader theorization of tech power in cities and shows how platform capitalism reshapes local governance and urban development. Bio: Burcu Baykurt is an assistant professor of media studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Her research explores how digital infrastructures reorganize governance and reproduce social inequalities. She is the author of Smart as a City: The Politics of Test-Bed Urbanism (University of California Press, forthcoming 2026), and co-editor of Soft-Power Internationalism: Competing for Cultural Influence in the 21st-Century Global Order (Columbia University Press, 2021). |
Niva Elkin-Koren (Tel Aviv University)
Access Denied: Private Ordering, Scraping Battles, and the Future of AI Data Governance
Abstract: A defining feature of the digital era is the rise of private ordering, which shifts rulemaking power to those who control access to data. This development has long raised questions about the legitimacy of technological self-help measures and boilerplate contractual terms that conflict with public policy. With the rapid growth of generative AI, these concerns have become urgent. Data is essential for training, updating, and overseeing AI systems, yet platforms increasingly use technical barriers and contracts to restrict access to publicly available data. Disputes such as LinkedIn’s challenge to hiQ Labs and Cloudflare’s recent accusations against Perplexity AI highlight a broader struggle over who controls the data needed for AI development and oversight. While content providers have legitimate interests in protecting ownership, privacy, safety, and cybersecurity, those who bypass barriers to access public data may also have valid public-interest reasons. The balance between these interests should be set by public policy, not unilateral private power. This talk examines the legal challenges raised by these conflicts and argues that access to data in the AI era is too important to leave to private ordering. The law must limit excessive data privatization to ensure equitable, reliable access that supports research, accountability, and innovation. Bio: Niva Elkin-Koren is the Stewart and Judy Colton Professor of Legal Theory and Innovation at Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law and a Faculty Associate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. She is the academic director of the Chief Justice Meir Shamgar Center for Digital Law and Innovation, and a member of the Academic Management Committee of TAU Center for Artificial Intelligence and Data Science. Her research lies at the intersection between law and information technology, with a focus on both the governance of AI and governance by AI. She studies how AI tools interact with social institutions, legal processes, and fundamental rights, examining issues such as explainability, transparency, accountability of generative platforms, and the role of foundation models in shaping legal interpretation. |
Klaus Miller (HEC Paris)
Engagement vs. Commitment: The Economic Trade-Offs of Polarizing News Content
Abstract: We study how polarizing content shapes two economic outcomes on a major European news website: engagement (time on site) and commitment (paid subscriptions). Using advances in natural language processing, we construct deep-learning and large-language-model-based textual measures of polarization tailored to a multiparty system. We combine comprehensive supply and demand data—the full publisher-wide article inventory with user-level clicks and subscription outcomes—to track how consumers interact with polarizing articles. To identify causal effects, we use two theoretically distinct instruments: (i) a Bartik-style design that interacts users’ stable topic preferences with weekly shifts in the supply of polarizing content; and (ii) an election shock that raises political salience for a subset of readers. We document a “polarization trap”: exogenous increases in exposure to polarizing content raise engagement (time on site) but reduce the probability of subscribing. The negative subscription effect is driven more by the affective than the ideological dimension of polarization and is strongest during high-salience political periods. These results imply a strategic trade-off for publishers: content that maximizes short-run attention can undermine the formation of a loyal, paying subscriber base. Bio: I am an Assistant Professor in the Marketing Department at HEC Paris and a Chairholder at the Hi!PARIS Center on Data Analytics and Artificial Intelligence for Science, Business and Society. I joined from Goethe University in Frankfurt in 2021. My research interests meet at the interface between empirical quantitative marketing, management economics, and information systems – specifically, my research focuses on online advertising and privacy issues in the digital economy. During my Ph.D., as a post-doctoral scholar and afterward, I have been a frequent visiting scholar at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University. My research has been published in top-tier academic journals such as the Journal of Marketing Research and the International Journal of Research in Marketing, as well as management-oriented journals. In my research projects, I often collaborate with the industry to answer research questions at scale. In 2017, I was nominated as a Junior Faculty Consortium Fellow at the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), and in 2022, I was nominated as an ISMS Early-Career Scholar. From 2019-2025, I am a co-investigator on an European Research Council (ERC) Advanced Grant studying the impact of Online Tracking Restrictions on the Online Advertising Market. |
Bruno Carballa-Smichowski (EC Joint Research Centre)
Intertwined Network Effects: Theory and Evidence
Abstract: In many transaction two-sided markets, an “aggregator” platform (e.g., Trivago) gives buyers access to the sellers (e.g., hotels) of a competing “source” platform (e.g., Booking). This creates “intertwined network effects” (INE) between them. Despite the prevalence of this phenomenon, including multiple prominent mergers, little is known about it. Using a theoretical model, I show that while INEs increase consumer surplus, they reduce seller surplus if the platforms are sufficiently differentiated for sellers, and increase it otherwise. In presence of INE, a non-consolidating merger reduces double marginalization, but increases market power. Thus, it harms consumers if the network effects they enjoy are sufficiently low, and vice versa. If the platforms are sufficiently homogeneous to sellers, the merger reduces their surplus. I validate the model empirically by exploiting two cases in which classified ads platforms introduced INE: Finn/Nettbil and Adverts/DoneDeal. Using event study designs, I show that INE caused an increase in the number of users in the aggregator. Using a time series approach, I provide descriptive evidence that INE increased seller participation in the aggregator and decreased it in the source platform. I discuss the implications of the findings for merger control and asymmetric interoperability policies. Bio: Bruno Carballa-Smichowski is an economist specializing in industrial organization, digital economics, and competition policy. He is a researcher at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. His work combines theoretical modeling, reduced-form econometrics, and data analysis to study how digital technologies reshape competition and firm strategy. He holds a PhD and a master’s in economics from Université Sorbonne Paris Nord and a bachelor’s and master’s in Economics from Universidad de Buenos Aires. |
Anna Tzanaki (University of Leeds)
Dynamism and Politics in EU Merger Control: The Perils And Promise of a Killer Acquisitions Solution through a Law & Economics Lens
Abstract: For the last 35 years since its coming into being nothing seemed to shake the institutional setup of EU merger control. Notwithstanding their inherent limitations, turnover thresholds had been consciously chosen as the one and only jurisdictional criterion for EU merger review under the EUMR. The “clearcut” and “certain” threshold-based system of merger competence allocation was at the heart of the political bargain struck between the Commission and Member States that had been repeatedly skeptical of giving up part of their national powers for pan-European merger control to arise. Turnover thresholds had two key redeeming virtues: excluding jurisdictional competition between the Commission and Member States, with rare and narrow exceptions under a system of case referrals and being relatively simple and predictable in their application. As a side deal to that bargain, it was promised by the Commission that EU antitrust rules – previously instrumentalized to get Member States to agree on the enactment of the EUMR – were not to be used as basis for merger enforcement going forward. The result was an institutional setup much different to the now decentralized system of EU antitrust enforcement: transactions above the EUMR thresholds were subject to “centralized” mandatory ex ante review at EU level whereas below-threshold transactions were left to national merger control laws (if any). With the rise of digitalization, that era of contained and certain EU merger enforcement seems long gone. “Killer acquisitions” exposed a major jurisdictional gap in EU merger control: acquisitions of small innovative startups fall below the EUMR’s turnover-based thresholds. As such, they are typically outside the Commission’s competence regardless of the potential cross-border nature of their geographic impact or the limited scope of applicable national merger control regimes. Eager for a quick and targeted fix, the Commission responded to the demand for more flexibility in EU merger control by unilaterally “repurposing” the Article 22 EUMR referral mechanism to catch any below-threshold killer mergers. Yet, the Commission’s creative solution to its jurisdictional deficit would not effectively address the “deterrence problem” and the “externality problem”, the main deficiencies of the EUMR thresholds, while it would de facto transform merger competence allocation between the EU and Member States into a “non-zero-sum” game, without amending the EUMR that would entail renegotiation of the original “zero-sum” bargain with Member States. Although the Commission’s attempt for unlimited jurisdictional expansion was struck down by the ECJ’s Illumina/Grail judgment, a narrower version of Article 22 EUMR based on national “call-in” powers still remains permissible. This paper shows that the repurposed Article 22 in its current form is neither an optimal nor sustainable solution and the search for further systemic reforms continues. Bio: Anna Tzanaki is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Leeds, and an Affiliate Fellow of the Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. She serves as an Associate Editor of the Journal of Competition Law & Economics (Oxford) and Competition Policy International (Boston). Her research interests lie in the areas of EU and comparative competition law and policy, mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance and finance, law and economics, digital markets and new technologies. She holds a PhD from University College London (UCL) Faculty of Laws, an LLM from the University of Chicago Law School, and an LLB from the University of Athens Law School. |
Nir Grinberg (Ben-Gurion University)
Supersharers of Fake News on Twitter
Abstract: Governments may have the capacity to flood social media with fake news, but little is known about the use of flooding by ordinary voters. Here, we identify 2,107 registered U.S. voters that account for 80% of fake news shared on Twitter during the 2020 U.S. presidential election by an entire panel of 664,391 voters. We find that supersharers are important members of the network, reaching a sizable 5.2% of registered voters on the platform. Supersharers have a significant over-representation of women, older adults, and registered Republicans. Supersharers’ massive volume does not seem automated but is rather generated through manual and persistent retweeting. These findings highlight a vulnerability of social media for democracy, where a small group of people distort the political reality for many. Bio: Nir Grinberg is an Assistant Professor of Computer and Information Science at Ben-Gurion University, Israel. His research investigates social behavior in large-scale, online information systems. He studies areas where information systems are suboptimal for people — for example, by not meeting people’s needs, goals, or expectations — and proposes new computational measures to bridge the gaps. For example, he studied the scale and scope of fake news on social media and developed methods for limiting its spread, audited Google Search and Gmail for structural biases and inequality, and examined online user engagement with news to promote better measures for quantifying it. He collaborated on research projects with diverse partners including Facebook Research, Yahoo! Labs, the World Bank, and Israel’s Ministry of Justice. He holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Cornell University, a M.Sc. in Computer Science from Rutgers University, and a double major B.Sc. in Physics and Computer Science from Tel Aviv University. |
Atoosa Kasirzadeh (Carnegie Mellon University)
Redrawing the narrative boundaries of Artificial General Inelligence
Abstract: The dominant story of AI’s future imagines a decisive moment when a single machine, artificial general intelligence, eclipses humanity, tipping history toward salvation or ruin. I argue that this switch‑point narrative misreads both technical progress and social change. I then develop an alternative narrative according to which power and risk diffuse across entangled networks rather than hinging on one breakthrough, demanding governance that tracks connections, not cliff‑edges. Related readings: |
Lucas Lasota (Free Software Foundation Europe & Weizenbaum Institute)
Is Interoperability cool again? Entangling the DMA, FOSS and the Telecom Sector
Abstract: The Digital Markets Act (DMA) relies on interoperability as one of its regulatory tool in Art. 6(7). Gatekeepers have proposed diverse approaches to comply with their interoperability obligations regarding APIs. Apple has introduced a request-based approach for granting software and hardware interoperability. This contrasts with the industry practices adopted by Free and Open Source Software projects (FOSS). This talk portrays the diverse challenges FOSS services and products face in requesting interoperability with software features controlled by iOS and iPadOS. Besides, to illustrate how interoperability has been regulated in the EU, this talk concludes with lessons learned from regulatory activity over interconnection of routers and modems). Telecom regulators in the EU have recurred to interoperability to open up infrastructure subjected to gatekeeper control. Bio: Dr. Lucas Lasota, MA, PhD, is a researcher, lecturer, qualified lawyer (Brazil) and project manager in the field of IT, telecommunications and contract law. His research focuses on regulatory measures of digital technologies and their impact on individual and collective rights, as well as on internet governance, telecommunications and international contract law. He is Associate Researcher at the Weizenbaum Institute and at Halle-Wittenberg University. He also works as Legal Programme Manager at the Free Software Foundation Europe. |
Bruce Schneier (Harvard University)
AI and Trust
Abstract: Trusting a friend and trusting a service are fundamentally different. The former is personal and intimate, while the latter is impersonal and can scale to all of human society. The companies behind the current generative AI systems are poised to exploit that difference. Their intimate conversational nature will cause us to think of them as friends when they are actually services, and trusted confidents when they will be actually be working against us. Moreover, any serious AI application requires us to be sure that the models are secure. The second is a matter of technology. The first is a matter of policy. Both will require government regulation of the industry, which is how we create social trust in our society. Bio: Bruce Schneier is an internationally renowned security technologist, called a “security guru” by the Economist. He is the New York Times best-selling author of 14 books — including A Hacker’s Mind — as well as hundreds of articles, essays, and academic papers. His influential newsletter Crypto-Gram and blog Schneier on Security are read by over 250,000 people. Schneier is a fellow at the Berkman-Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, a Lecturer in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and AccessNow, and an advisory board member of EPIC and VerifiedVoting.org. He is the Chief of Security Architecture at Inrupt, Inc. |
Sandra Matz (Columbia Business School)
Mindmasters: The Data-Driven Science of Predicting and Changing Human Behavior
Abstract: Individuals make about 35,000 decisions every day – decisions as mundane as choosing today’s socks or breakfast cereal, or as consequential as deciding which career to pursue or whom to marry. Even though we all love the idea of owning our decisions, few of the choices we make are made entirely independently and as algorithms become increasingly adept at accessing and manipulating our attention, they also become more and more powerful at taking control – enticing us to buy a certain product or vote for a certain political candidate. In her new book Mindmasters, Sandra Matz offers a fascinating insider perspective on the art and data-driven science of psychological targeting. On March 27th she will join us to discuss how Big Data offers insights into the most intimate aspects of our psyche, and how these insights empower external influence over the choices we make. Bio: Sandra Matz is the David W. Zalaznick Professor of Business at Columbia Business School and the author of Mindmasters. As a computational social scientist with a background in psychology and computer science, Dr. Matz studies human behavior by uncovering the hidden relationships between our digital footprints and our inner mental lives. Her goal is to make data relatable and help individuals, businesses and policy makers use data in more effective and ethical ways. Over the last ten years Dr. Matz has published more than fifty academic papers in the world’s leading peer-reviewed journals, and her work has frequently been covered by many major news outlets, including the Economist, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and Business Insider. In addition, she has shared her findings with business leaders, policymakers, and the broader public through op-eds, keynote speeches, podcasts, TV appearances, and consulting work. Dr. Matz has won numerous awards for her research and teaching, including the SAGE Early Career Trajectory Award for social and personality psychologists; Poets and Quants’ Best 40-Under-40 MBA professors; Capital Magazine’s Young Elite Top 40 Under 40; World Frontiers Forum Young Pioneers; Pacific Standard Magazine’s Top 30 Thinkers Under 30; and DataIQ’s 100 Most Influential People in Data. |
Richard Whitt (GliaNet Alliance)
Building a Trust Layer for the Web
Abstract: In his ground-breaking new book, Reweaving the Web, Richard Whitt – former longtime policy attorney with Google – describes GliaNet, a promising digital ecosystem where each of us is empowered to control our online lives. Whitt shows how a new profession of Net Fiduciaries can serve us under duties of care, good faith, and loyalty. In turn, these trustworthy intermediaries can arm us with edgetech applications, such as authentic personal AI agents, which can protect, enhance, and promote our best interests. In his talk, Whitt will also introduce us to the GliaNet Alliance. This new coalition of companies and supporters is building out a real-world community of practice of Net Fiduciaries. Bio: Richard Whitt’s career spans over three decades as a public policy attorney, technology strategist, business advisor, and entrepreneur. He spent over eleven years with Google (2007-‘18) in its Washington DC and Mountain View offices, including serving for four years as corporate director for strategic initiatives. More recently, Richard was senior vice president for government relations and public policy with Twilio Inc (2022-‘24), and served as senior fellow in residence with the Mozilla Foundation (2018-‘22). Richard also led tech and telecom public policy teams at MCI Communications (1994-2006), and worked as an associate at several large Washington DC-based technology law firms (1988-‘94). In 2018, under the auspices of his GLIA Foundation, Richard launched the GliaNet initiative, a trust-based Web overlay. His new book, Reweaving the Web, presents a robust theory of change and action plans for bringing the GliaNet ecosystem to life. Richard currently heads the GliaNet Alliance, a coalition of technology companies building new markets anchored by Net fiduciaries and authentic Personal AI agents. In addition, his NetsEdge consultancy works with tech startups in Silicon Valley to develop ethical governance structures. Richard received his Juris Doctor degree cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center, and his Bachelor of Science degree magna cum laude from James Madison University. He is currently a senior fellow with the Georgetown Institute for Technology Law and Policy. Born and raised in the Washington DC area, Richard now resides in Emerald Hills, California. |
Alexandre de Streel (University of Namur)
Making the Cyberspace Great Again: how can EU tech laws restore the promises of the Internet
Abstract: The talk will discuss what are the synergies between the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act and their ultimate objectives in restoring some of the early promises of the Internet expressed by John Perry Barlow in his Declaration of the Cyberspace. The talk will also discuss what are the means which are necessary to achieve those objectives and how the new EU tech law influence the four regulators of the cyberspace identified by Lessig (law, markets, technical architecture and social norms). Finally the talk with discuss the enforcement of the EU tech in the current geo-political turmoils. Bio: Alexandre de Streel is professor of European law at the University of Namur and visiting professor at the College of Europe (Bruges) and SciencesPo Paris. He is also academic director of the digital research programme at the Brussels think-tank Centre on Regulation in Europe (CERRE) and member of decision panel at the Belgian Competition Authority. He sits in the scientific committees of the Knight-Georgetown Institute (US), the European University Institute-Centre for a Digital Society (Italy) and Mannheim Centre for Competition and Innovation (Germany). His main research areas are the regulation and the application of competition policy in the digital economy (telecommunications, platforms and data) as well as the legal issues raised by the developments of artificial intelligence. He regulatory advises the European Union and international organisations on digital regulation. Previously, Alexandre held visiting positions at New York University Law School, European University Institute in Florence, Panthéon-Assas (Singapore campus), Barcelona Graduate School of Economics and the University of Louvain. He also worked for the Belgian Deputy Prime Minister, the Belgian Permanent Representation to the European Union and the European Commission and has been the chair the expert group on the online platform economy advising the European Commission.
|
Marco Almada (University of Luxembourg)
A procedural theory of technology neutrality
Abstract: Technology-neutral regulation is a popular slogan in digital lawmaking. Present in the European Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines and name-checked in instruments such as the DSA and the AI Act, technology neutrality is touted as a way to regulate innovative technologies while fostering innovation. However, the operationalization of this concepts suffers from various challenges, not least a lack of consensus about what neutrality means in the first place. In this presentation, I argue that technology neutrality is better understood as a process for the delegation of the power to determine the technical contents of regulation. This procedural theory of technology neutrality reflects how the term is used in debates about regulation, finding common ground between the different meanings given to the concept in regulation. More importantly, it suggests the need to focus on the trade-offs associated with this delegation of power. By viewing technology neutrality as a process rather than a static property of legal text, one can assess its value in practice rather than taking it for granted. To that effect, the presentation concludes with a discussion of how the procedural theory of technology neutrality can help with the evaluation of whether a technology-neutral approach is fit for purpose. Bio: Marco Almada is a postdoctoral researcher in law at the University of Luxembourg. Working under the Chair of Cyber Policy, his research deals with the regulation of artificial intelligence in the European Union (EU), with special attention to cybersecurity and the global impact of EU policy on AI. Almada holds a PhD in law from the European University Institute and postgraduate degrees in both law and computer science, having professional experience in both fields. |
Sofia Ranchordas (Tilburg University/LUISS Guido Carli) and
Karen Yeung (University of Birmingham)
Book Launch: Introduction to Law and Regulation
Abstract: Contemporary life relies on regulation. The quality and safety of the water we drink, the food we eat, and the social media applications we use are all governed by multiple regulatory regimes. Although rooted in law, regulation is a multidisciplinary endeavour. Debates about regulation, particularly in the face of rapid change and the emergence of new ‘risks’, are now commonplace. Despite extensive scholarship, regulation is often poorly understood, even by policy-makers, with unintended and even disastrous consequences. This book offers a critical introduction to core theories, concepts, methods, tools, and techniques of regulation, including regulatory policy, instruments, enforcement, compliance, accountability and legitimacy. Weaving extracts from texts drawn from many disciplines with accessible commentary, it introduces this important field to students, scholars, and practitioners in a scholarly yet accessible and engaging manner with discussion questions and additional readings for those seeking to deepen their knowledge. Bio: Sofia Ranchordas is a Full Professor of Administrative Law at Tilburg Law School and a Professor of Public Law at Luiss Guido Carli in Rome. She is a scholar specialized in the regulation of digital technology (including AI), regulation and inequities (race, gender, and economic inequalities), and (comparative) administrative law. She currently leads two prestigious research projects (NWO-Vidi, WASP-HS) on vulnerability in the automated state. Her new book, Introduction to Law and Regulation (Cambridge University Press, 2024, with Karen Yeung) offers a primer on regulatory studies. Karen Yeung is a leading scholar in the governance of emerging technologies. She is recognised worldwide for her work in the regulation and governance of AI, urging scholars from computer science, engineering, law, the humanities and the social sciences to engage in the interdisciplinary work needed to address the novel social challenges which these increasingly powerful technologies generate. |
Fabian Stephany (Oxford Internet Institute)
AI’s Ripple Effect on Skills and Labour Markets: Evidence from Two Years with the SkillScale Project
Abstract: This talk unveils key insights from the SkillScale Project, exploring how artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming skills and labour markets. Using large-scale online data, the presentation highlights:
Together, these trends showcase AI’s profound impact on hiring, job benefits, and workforce dynamics, offering actionable insights into its broader economic and societal implications. Bio: Fabian Stephany is an Assistant Professor in AI & Work at the Oxford Internet Institute (OII), University of Oxford, a Research Affiliate at the Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society in Berlin, and a Fellow at the Brussels-based Think Tank Bruegel. Leading the SkillScale Project, Fabian investigates the emergence of new skills and the sustainability of novel occupations in times of technological disruption. He is a co-creator of the Online Labour Observatory – a digital data hub, hosted by the OII and the International Labour Organisation, for researchers, policymakers, journalists, and the public interested in online platform work. His research has been published in leading academic journals and was covered by the Washington Post, The New York Times, The Telegraph, The Statesman, Nikkei Asia, and other popular media around the world. Fabian holds a PhD and degrees in Economics and Social Sciences from different European institutions, including Universitá Bocconi Milan and the University of Cambridge. As an Economist and Senior Data Scientist, Fabian has been working in the private sector and for various actors in the international policy landscape, such as the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank, and the OECD in Paris. |
Giuseppe Colangelo (University of Basilicata)
Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: Competition Law versus Regulation
Abstract: Interoperability is widely recognized as crucial for addressing competitive challenges in digital markets, especially within mobile ecosystems, where third-party devices and apps rely on seamless integration to function effectively. However, access to APIs may be restricted by privacy, security, or technical concerns. Moreover, limited interoperability between hardware and software within these ecosystems is often seen as a strategy by dominant players to extend their economic influence into complementary sectors. This issue is particularly relevant in the growing adoption of mobile wallets, which highlights the significant potential for expansion into banking and financial services. Against this backdrop, the presentation explores whether effective interoperability can be achieved through the enforcement of competition rules or if regulatory measures, such as those proposed in the European Digital Markets Act (DMA), are necessary. Bio: Giuseppe Colangelo is a Jean Monnet Professor of European Innovation Policy and an Associate Professor of Law and Economics at University of Basilicata (Italy). He also serves as Adjunct Professor of Markets, Regulation and Law at LUISS (Italy). He is fellow of the Stanford Law School and University of Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum (TTLF), the scientific coordinator of the Research Network for Digital Ecosystem, Economic Policy and Innovation (Deep-In), and an academic affiliate with the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE). His primary research interests are related to competition law and policy, market regulation, innovation policy, intellectual property, and economic analysis of law. |
Alba Ribera Martínez (University Villanueva)
Generative AI in Check: Gatekeeper Power and Policy Under the DMA
Abstract: The deployment of systems of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become mainstream and popular among small and large economic operators. One of the most significant developments includes services that rely on natural language processing (NLP), often in the form of chatbots. Multimodal AI and generative AI systems have attracted regulatory interest due to their widespread global adoption. Concentration levels at different levels of distribution of these systems have seen a particularly stark increase. According to regulators, such a trend prompts the need to intervene so that AI systems can remain transparent, explainable, non-discriminatory and fair. In the EU, enforcers of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) are already considering how to square the circle of capturing AI through its provisions. This paper identifies a key preliminary challenge to such an integration: the issue of scope. To design effective regulatory reforms aimed at addressing concentration, it is essential to clarify which aspects of AI systems should be targeted. This includes determining whether the focus should be on the monopolistic issues arising from feedback loops in training data or, alternatively, on addressing concentration at the levels of AI input or output. In line with the DMA’s spirit, the paper argues that legislative developments should take place at the input level as well as regarding training data. After that, the paper sets forth two states of the world. First, the DMA’s current enforcement and scope of application. Second, the DMA’s potential in the future to capture generative AI as a core platform service. Bio: Alba is a law scholar and lecturer in Competition Law at Universidad Villanueva. She obtained her PhD in Competition Law at University Carlos III of Madrid under the thesis ‘Move Fast and Break Nothing: EU Competition Law Interacting with Data Protection Interests’, with the highest distinction (cum laude). Her current research interests include digital regulation, tech law, fundamental rights and data protection regulation. Alba has held several editorial positions, such as in Kluwer Competition Law Blog and at the Journal of European Competition Law & Practice. |