Use Case 3 in Chapter 6 examines the regulation of MDTs in the context of political advertising under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Regulation on Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising (TTPA), the Digital Services Act (DSA), and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA). The prohibition on advertising based on profiling with special category data in both the DSA and the TTPA does not adequately reflect the capabilities of modern data analytics. Both the DSA and the TTPA fall short in addressing MDTs as stand-alone techniques or as complements to online behavioural advertising and political microtargeting. The AIA’s prohibition of subliminal, manipulative, and deceptive techniques requires a complex set of criteria to be met, with the outcome still uncertain.

This chapter examines China’s approach to platform responsibility for content moderation. It notes that China’s approach is rooted in its overarching goal of public opinion management, which requires platforms to proactively monitor, moderate, and sometimes censor content, especially politically sensitive content. Despite its patchy and iterative approach, China’s platform regulation is consistent and marked by its distinct characteristics, embodied in its defining of illegal and harmful content, its heavy platform obligations, and its strong reliance on administrative enforcement measures. China’s approach reflects its authoritarian nature and the asymmetrical power relations between the government and private platforms. This chapter also provides a nuanced understanding of China’s approach to platform responsibility, including Chinese platforms’ "conditional liability" for tort damages and the regulators’ growing emphasis on user protection and personal information privacy. This chapter includes a case study on TikTok that shows the interplay between the Chinese approach, oversees laws and regulations and the Chinese online platform’s content moderation practices.