Organisation and History
The Leibniz Institute for Media Research | Hans Bredow Institute (HBI) examines media change and the related structural shifts in public communication.
Information on the organisation of the Institute, its financing, the bodies, the academic advisory board and its eponym Hans Bredow.
Organisation Chart 2020
All employees: board of directors, academic and non-academic staff, guest researchers
Latest news from the Institute
We are looking for new colleagues!
FREQUENTLY SEARCHED RESEARCHERS
Services & Knowledge Transfer
The academic profile of the Leibniz Institute for Media Research | Hans-Bredow-Institut (HBI) is characterised by its research programmes.
The Institute focuses on transferring its work to various target groups and various formats in the broadest way possible.
The Leibniz Institute for Media Research | Hans-Bredow-Institut (HBI) is engaged in numerous international and national research networks in research and practice.
An overview of all research projects that are carried out during the current research year.
How to improve one's research impact
Technology, (Media) Economy and Transformation: Research Impact Sprints
New International Project
Journal M&K
"Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft" offers a forum for the discussion of media and communication-related issues and for analyses of media development from different perspectives and for all media.
Series "Working Papers of the Hans-Bredow-Institut"
The annual and activity reports document the Institute's work in the areas of research, transfer and service on a yearly basis.
Other series and publications of the Institute
Freshly Served for Lunch: Media Research
We talk about topics of scientific and social relevance
Available Journals
Information about the library
Overview of all available jornals
Overview on our library's classification scheme
Coin-operated copier available, 5 Cent/Copy.
You may scan free of charge on your own USB stick.
Treatment of Algorithmic Communication in German Constitutional Law
Every app, every website, every search query uses algorithms. In his PhD project, Felix Krupar analyses the legal classification of algorithmic communication.
Every app, every program and every website uses algorithmic operations, which determine their behaviour, appearance and functions. However, despite this omnipresence, the legal treatment of the results of algorithmic calculations is characterized by uncertainty. Although algorithms are not more than a sequence of arithmetic operations and, thus, the result should be comparable to a fact, some algorithmic results seem to have a nature that is close to a statement of opinion. How relevant and complex this problem is, can be seen with these two cases: the judgement of the Federal High Court of Justice on the autocomplete functions of Google and the judgements on the rating portal Yelp. In both cases, the parties argued about the output of algorithmic calculations, by which the plaintiffs claimed to be violated in their personal rights. The judgements however, are divergent in their argumentation as well as their results. As the jurisdiction lacks a clear line, and research does not pay much attention to this topic, it is all the more important to take a closer look at this issue. This dissertation will approach this problem from a constitutional perspective.
This work's broad aim is to develop a consistent handling of various forms of algorithmic communication from a legal perspective.
An algorithm is described as "[…] a clear set of rules of action for solving a problem or a number of problems." Thus, an algorithm has to have the same result over and over again if the starting point and the input are always the same. Therefore, it is logical that every output of an algorithm is a fact. There is (yet) no algorithm that is able to think like a human being and, thus, can form a "personal opinion". Every result of an algorithm can always be reconstructed like the solution of an arithmetic problem, e.g. 1 + 1 = 2. The best example is an algorithm for identifying prime numbers: its only task is to extract all prime numbers from a set of numbers. The result and, therefore, the output of the algorithm is always a fact. A prime number is a prime number and as such not subject to an evaluation by others.
The more complicated an algorithm gets, the more variables it has to consider, the more constants and parameters are added by the human hand, the more unmanageable it gets: even the programmer won't be able to foresee the result, and in the end, it can look like an opinion.
The legal relevance of the classification results from the peculiarities of the German right to free speech. Thus, it is already vague whether there is a statement of legal relevance if the remark was not or only indirectly given by a human. Besides, the different treatment of facts and opinions is quite problematic within German law. This runs through the whole legal system and, as a result, leads to serious differences. Unlike opinions, facts can only be right or wrong. The difference is the relationship between the statement and the reality. Facts can be proven, e.g. by taking evidence. Opinions, on the other hand, cannot be right or wrong, they can be true or false, considerate or inconsiderate. So, opinions are, in short, such statements that have a value judgement.
Surprisingly, only a few lawsuits had to deal with the classification of algorithms and the problems mentioned above. Google's autocomplete function is one example that the public is aware of, due to the rumours about the wife of the former German Federal President, Bettina Wulff. This case will serve as an example because it is particularly suited to show the problems and the relevance of a classification.
In the case of AutoComplete, the suggestions for (word) completion on a smaller scale already contain opinion-forming tendencies, statements and much more than the initial information people searched for. This effect becomes obvious if you search for people: Google completed the search for Bettina Wulff with suggestions leading to the red-light district until the judgment of the court. The search for Tom Cruise is automatically completed with "Scientology." In another case, which ended up in court and finally the BGH [Federal Supreme Court], the name of the plaintiff was connected to "fraud" and "bankruptcy." In the final instance, Google was sentenced to refrain from doing so. As a result, the BGH did not refer to the fact that the words mentioned above were searched within a context but to the subjective information that were given to all people searching for information. A deeper analysis is needed in order to see whether and what information is connected to a search, what the legal scope is and who is responsible for it.
Duration: 2015-2017
Research programme:
RP2 - Regulatory Structures and the Emergence of Rules in Digital Communication
Involved persons
Ass. iur. Felix Krupar
MAYBE YOU ARE ALSO INTERESTED IN THESE TOPICS?
media and telecommunications law • Neue Regulierungsformen • media law • algorithms
Related projects and publications
Conference within the Framework of the German EU Council Presidency
Coherent Media Order: Accompanying the EU Media Conference 2020
The institute will provide scientific support for the media conference in the context of Germany's 2020 EU Council Presidency and is analysing in advance the requirements of a modern European information order.
New Cooperation Project
Coding Public Value
The interdisciplinary project "Coding Public Value" investigates the possibility of shaping media policy by means of software development. The core of the project is to develop software for public media platforms that not only serves business models but is also oriented towards the common...
Interdisciplinary VolkswagenStiftung Project
Opportunities and Limitations of ADM Systems
The interdisciplinary basic research project examines the opportunities and limitations of algorithmic decision making systems by using the example of their use in criminal justice systems.
PhD Project
The Effect of Freedom of Expression in Social Networks
Is user-generated content on private communication platforms protected by freedom of expression? In her PhD project, Amélie Heldt focuses on the effect of the fundamental right on freedom of expression on the Internet.
Report for the German Bundestag
Algorithms and Opinion Formation
The Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag (TAB) commissioned the Hans-Bredow-Institut with a report on the topic of "Algorithms in Digital Media and Their Influence on Individual Opinion Formation of Users".
Article in Austrian Legal Newspaper
Ein sanfter Riesenbändiger. Potenzial und Probleme des Kommunikationsplattformengesetzes
In their article in the Österreichische Juristen-Zeitung, PD Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann and his co-authors write about the potential and problems of the Austrian Communications Platform Act (KoPl-G), which is based on the German NetzDG. To the publisher's website Abstract With...
Research Sprint Overview
When Scholars Sprint, Bad Algorithms Are on the Run
In the first research sprint of the project "Ethics of Digitalisation", funded by the Mercator Foundation, international researchers looked at the use of AI in the moderation of online content. PD Dr. Matthias Kettemann and Alexander Pirang provide an overview of the key findings in this b...
Article in Grimme Prize Publication
Mit besten Empfehlungen. Grundprinzipien algorithmischer Empfehlungssysteme für öffentlich-rechtliche Medienangebote
In the 56th edition of the publication "Grimme-Preis", Dr. Jan-Hinrik Schmidt writes about algorithmic recommendation systems in public media and the issues involved. To the publication (pdf) Abstract Algorithmic recommendation systems characterise our everyday use of the Internet. Be it...
Journal Contribution
Künstliche Intelligenz als Richter
Dr. Stephan Dreyer and Johannes Schmees examine the challenges and problems that arise in the automation of complex (state) decisions in their article in Computer und Recht using the example of court decisions. They argue for a reasonable consideration of the algorithmisation of legal processes in v...
Gesetzessammlung Information, Kommunikation, Medien, Auflage 18
Die rechtlichen Grundlagen im Bereich Information, Kommunikation und Medien ändern sich so rasch, dass die traditionelle Buchform für die Rechtsanwender – und auch für die Herausgeber – häufig unzweckmäßig erscheint. Kaum ist die Gesetzessammlung auf dem Ma...
Subscribe to our newsletter and receive the Institute's latest news via email.
LEIBNIZ-INSTITUTE FOR MEDIA RESEARCH | HANS-BREDOW-INSTITUT
The research perspective of the Leibniz-Institute for Media Research | Hans-Bredow-Institut focuses on media transformation and related structural changes of public communication. With its cross-medial, interdisciplinary and independent research, it combines basic research and transfer research, and thus, generates knowledge on issues relevant for politics, commerce and civil society.
RSS-Feed Publications