By Katerina Tsirigoti
Introduction
Lobbying is perceived as a negative aspect of politics that serves privileged minorities seeking to intervene directly or indirectly in political affairs. Lobbying can have transformative effects on the political life of a country, not only on domestic policy but equally on foreign policy, the electoral system, the protection of national interests and preservation of national security.
When it comes to health, the reality is more complex, as nowadays, lobbying constitutes both a medical issue and an important commercial and political determinant in our lives. Although European mental health protection policies have engendered in the adoption of numerous laws on health protection, in reality, Europe’s actions fall short of adopting strong preventive measures that respond to everyday challenges. Instead, they mention principles of pre-existing mental health prioritisations such as the significance of affordable mental healthcare and treatment. They also place emphasis on therapy solutions.
In areas where the EU does not have exclusive competence, its role may be limited to supporting, coordinating or supplementing the actions of Member States: it does not have the unilateral power to pass legislation and cannot interfere with Member States’ ability to do so. In these areas, such as public health, the EU has only a supporting role with reference to its Treaties. Trying to limit the impact of tech entities, therefore, becomes an overly sensitive and difficult-to-negotiate issue.
How much does the tech lobby influence our societies?
COVID-19 has become a starting point for many individual risk factors that divert attention away from underlying determinants such as healthcare market dominance and related policy decisions. In the United States, many parents and legislators have accused social media companies of developing highly addictive products that expose young people to harmful content. Platforms are augmenting, claiming that their technology enables people to form relationships that positively impact their mental health. Several mental health and positive-oriented digital applications promise to offer consumers the same psychotherapy at minimal cost, with the assistance of prominent e-health tools. Nevertheless, is it not a contradiction to talk about the effects of our attachment to the screen on the one hand while simultaneously trying to heal ourselves through them on the other?
Researchers from the University of North Carolina in psychology and neuroscience reported that teens who regularly checked their social media accounts experienced altered brain responses while interacting with society. Moreover, they tended to feel overwhelmed by criticism from colleagues. In a similar vein, in the UK, ministers are considering amending an online safety bill that would give criminal penalties, including prison terms, to social media executives who do not keep children safe.
While the pharmaceutical and food industries have garnered the most attention in lobbying activities for consumer and patient rights, understanding the impact of technology on related policies and its potential consequences on mental health is complex. According to Corporate Europe Observatory and Lobbycontrol, in 2021, 612 companies, associations and industry associations lobbied for EU digital economy policy, investing €97 million annually in lobbying EU institutions. Unfortunately, EU member state governments spend less than 2% of their total health budget on mental health. Most of this spending is in psychiatric hospitals, except in high-income countries, where the share is about 43%.
In a systematic review conducted by WHO, evidence showed that misleading and deceptive health-related content on social media can cause people to become psychologically ill during pandemics, health emergencies and humanitarian crises. Additionally, this study demonstrated that people found themselves experiencing social, political, and economic distress. WHO, academia, NGO’s, and small advocacy groups have spearheaded efforts to push for social media regulation, but mental health remains at risk, given the commercial interests of the tech industry. The example of the United States is illustrative, where many lobbyists perceive mental health protection as a mere insurance issue.
EU initiatives and the challenges to shape common public health strategies
The European Commission has already committed €1.23 billion ($1.3 billion) to address mental health. Among some of its initiatives, the EU promises to strengthen child protection, especially against the effects of social media, launch mental health campaigns in the workplace, as well as for the prevention of depression and suicide, providing targeted support especially for the elderly, migrants and refugees. The Commission found that before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, about 84 million people were already affected by mental health problems, costing €600 billion a year, or 4% of the EU’s collective GDP. The situation has deteriorated further since the Ukrainian war, the pandemic, the increasing tangibility of climate change and rising inflation.
General scientific findings, the complex symbiotic relationship between public and private sectors that underlies biomedical research, and numerous government regulations related to restrictions on lobbying make it challenging to create common EU legislation to protect mental health. Navigating this challenge is becoming increasingly difficult, especially when political expediency often prevails.
In July 2020, the European Commission launched two public consultations on digital services and the role of platforms as gatekeepers (the so-called ‘Digital Services Law Package’). This year, the European Commission released a draft highlighting the urgent need to include issues affecting European health policy, such as mental health, online abuse, cyberbullying, and protection of children from dark patterns and offensive advertising. The European Commission looks at stakeholder interaction and engagement to effectively enforce the Digital Services Act (‘DSA’).
This overarching law also sets out additional requirements for so-called ‘super-large online platforms’ i.e., those with at least 45 million EU users. For these companies, the law imposes content moderation risk assessments and independent legal action related to handling illegal material or content that, while lawful, poses a threat to public health, human rights, or other public interest priorities.
The Digital Markets Act (‘DMA’) and DSA are new initiatives designed to limit the market power of major tech platforms, curb the spread of illegal online content, and restrict targeted advertising that is core to some tech companies’ business models and requirements. However, more efforts must be made to address systemic risk and require platforms to impose more transparent obligations. The DSA introduces new obligations on very large online platforms and very large online search engines to assess and mitigate these systemic risks. This assessment of systemic risk is broad in scope and covers, for example, actual or potential negative effects in relation to gender-based violence, the protection of public health, minors and serious negative consequences to the person’s physical and mental wellbeing.
This obligation comes as a welcome one, given the fact that there are many negative effects emanating from these systems, from the spread of hate speech and misinformation to the invasion of people’s privacy and their right to non-discrimination.
Among the legislative measures, lawmakers are also targeting the prohibition of biometric categorisation systems that separate persons according to sensitive or protected attributes as well as the use of automated behavioural detection systems in publicly accessible spaces. Additionally, a ban is about to be implemented on the use of emotion recognition systems to infer people’s emotions and mental states.
European leaders like Margrethe Vestager, researchers, and members of the European Parliament have observed threats to democracy from companies, with Big Tech contributing to a Washingtonization of Brussels. This trend gives significant compensations and connections an advantage over the public interest, representing a strong corporate lobbying effort aimed at influencing the EU’s discourse on modern technology regulations. The trilogue consultation process with Google, Facebook and Spotify further aims to influence the European Parliament’s proposal to limit surveillance measures and market obligations.
The absence of transparency in crafting European and, consequently, domestic legislation primarily benefits select wealthy groups, significantly affecting people’s lives. This lack of transparency is a critical factor in stifling dissent, as it obstructs public access to essential information.
Conclusion
Overall, the role of lobbyists, public policies, and their relationship to the forays of big tech companies in our lives are inevitably tied to a mix of determinants including, inter alia, cybersecurity and human rights. Uncontrolled digital use will impact mental health if policy decisions fail to protect people from privacy exploitation and infringement, despite backlash from businesses claiming to sympathise with parliamentary proposals. The long-term effects have already grown apparent by igniting new mental and psychological trends, and significant ethical aspects of their usage will reveal new areas for debate. It is still unclear who will win this tug-of-war, and it is up to governments to decide whether they want to build a Europe for the few or one for the many, the latter being one which respects inclusiveness, democratic values, and human integrity.
Katerina Tsirigoti is a graduate from the International-European Relations and Law programme at Panteion University of Athens. She is currently undertaking a Master’s degree in Global Health-Disaster Medicine and Humanitarian Response at the Medical School of Athens with a major in Humanitarian Assistance and Global Health Governance. She also volunteers at the Centre for African Justice Peace and Human Rights in the Netherlands.
European Studies Review 