//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
Profile
Loading...
I'm an associate professor of law at University College Dublin specialising in technology law (mostly privacy/data protection/cybercrime/fundamental rights), consultant solicitor with FP Logue LLP, and chair of Digital Rights Ireland.
TJ McIntyre








Loading...
'In the interest of the operator' is doing a lot of work in paragraph 112. Presumably a provider doesn't lose the immunity if it is imposing algorithmic controls for some other reason - if required by other law, or as explicitly requested by the user perhaps?
Spare a thought for every content moderation lawyer in Europe, especially those who are wondering what to tell their Californian colleagues when they wake up.