{"id":28977,"date":"2026-06-29T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-29T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/?p=28977"},"modified":"2026-07-02T16:56:57","modified_gmt":"2026-07-02T14:56:57","slug":"platforms-as-sites-of-experimentation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/platforms-as-sites-of-experimentation\/","title":{"rendered":"Platforms as Sites of Experimentation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Two verdicts in the United States in March 2026 demonstrate that courts are increasingly willing to treat online platforms as designed systems rather than neutral conduits or editorial voices. In Los Angeles, a jury\u00a0found<\/u><\/a> Meta and Google liable on product-design and failure-to-warn theories for building platforms that are addictive and thus dangerous to minors \u2013\u00a0evaluating not what content circulated but how the system was engineered. In New Mexico, a jury\u00a0found<\/u><\/a> Meta liable for misleading users about the safety of its apps, violating state consumer protection laws. The legal theories in these cases differ, but their underlying logic is the same<\/u><\/a>: the tech companies\u2019 legal shields<\/u><\/a> do not protect their technological designs.<\/p>\n

Yet this turn to platform design in litigation requires identifiable plaintiffs and causal chains, and does not directly address the deeper question of who should govern this design, and with what transparency and accountability mechanisms. Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR<\/u><\/a>), particularly the human right to science, provides a normative framework for addressing this gap. Specifically: Article 15(1)(b) protects the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications; Article 15(2) addresses the conservation, development, and diffusion of science; and Article 15(3) protects the freedom indispensable for scientific research. Together, these provisions offer a normative framework for determining who may participate in shaping the scientific and technological systems that structure public life.<\/p>\n

For the three decades spanning the passage of Section 230<\/u><\/a>\u00a0of the Communications Decency Act in the US to newer regulations such as the EU\u2019s Digital Services Act (DSA<\/u><\/a>) and the UK\u2019s Online Safety Act<\/u><\/a>, the policy and regulatory debates on how to regulate online platforms and what responsibilities they bear have largely focused on civil and political rights, mainly freedom of expression. Even where regulatory instruments extend beyond speech and cover other rights such as privacy,\u00a0dignity, non-discrimination, and freedom of information, they remain centered on civil and political rights. Less attention is given to economic, social, and cultural rights (see observations here<\/u><\/a>, here<\/u><\/a>, and here<\/u><\/a>). Most notably, the human right to science\u00a0has rarely been seriously put forward when examining online platforms.\u00a0This omission is consequential. More than just technological products that apply scientific knowledge, online platforms are socio-technical systems that continuously experiment<\/u><\/a> on human behavior and social interaction. Through large-scale data extraction, behavioral experimentation, and engagement optimization techniques, platforms\u00a0learn from<\/u><\/a>, predict<\/u><\/a>, and\u00a0influence<\/u><\/a>\u00a0human attention and behavior. Beyond this, platforms increasingly mediate access to scientific knowledge itself. Yet the platforms\u2019 technological designs are left largely in the hands of a small number of private corporations. This makes the human right to science a forgotten right in platform governance, depriving scholarly and regulatory debates of the obligations that this right generates.<\/p>\n

The Forgotten Right<\/strong><\/p>\n

The human right to science, enshrined in Article 15 of the ICESCR,\u00a0has received\u00a0little attention<\/u><\/a> and has long remained on the margins<\/u><\/a> of international human rights law.\u00a0Some rights related to science, such as freedom of thought and expression, academic freedom, and freedom of association,\u00a0have been considered justiciable civil and political rights. Conversely, the \u201cright to science\u201d itself has been bundled with the economic, social, and cultural rights\u00a0\u2013\u00a0also sometimes called \u201csecond generation rights<\/u><\/a>\u201d\u00a0\u2013\u00a0which some scholars deem<\/u><\/a> less justiciable for being more dependent on available resources\u00a0and progressive realization through State measures. While the Vienna Declaration and <\/u>Programme<\/u> of Action<\/u><\/a> rejects the Cold War-era division between civil and political rights, on one hand, and economic, social, and cultural rights, on the other, this artificial divide has impacted the development and\u00a0realization of the right to science.<\/p>\n

The neglect of this right in platform governance debates has profound consequences. The discussions are almost always centered on matters involving expression: content moderation, censorship,\u00a0editorial discretion, and the marketplace of ideas. Even when scholarly and regulatory debates expand beyond freedom of expression and include other rights, the analysis remains within the civil and political rights paradigm.\u00a0The technological systems themselves\u00a0\u2013\u00a0ranking algorithms, engagement mechanics, behavioral optimization\u00a0\u2013\u00a0are almost never examined\u00a0as scientific advancements\u00a0in which the public holds participatory rights<\/u><\/a> under international human rights law. Accordingly, neither public participation in the design of these systems nor independent research access to their operations is recognized as an entitlement arising from the human right to science.<\/p>\n

Tools <\/strong>of<\/strong> Scientific Experiment<\/strong>ation<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

More than conduits of users\u2019 speech, platforms are instruments\u00a0of\u00a0scientific experimentation: they use applied mathematics, data science, and behavioral psychology, and deploy algorithmic systems and engagement mechanics to\u00a0learn from<\/u><\/a>, predict<\/u><\/a>, and influence<\/u><\/a> human attention and behavior\u00a0at scale. Because platforms engage in ongoing large-scale experimentation, everyone has the right not only to enjoy their benefits (through utilizing them to exercise freedom of expression) but also to \u201cparticipate\u201d in them. This means that decisions regarding platforms\u2019 technological systems\u00a0\u2013\u00a0including those that determine whose attention is worth monetizing,\u00a0whose knowledge circulates, and whose participation in public life is amplified or suppressed\u00a0\u2013\u00a0should not be left to a small group of elite corporations.<\/p>\n

As Samantha Besson argues<\/u><\/a>, science is a participatory good that gives rise to a set of participatory and collective rights to contribute to and enjoy\u00a0the benefits of science.\u00a0That the right to science has a participatory dimension and is not limited to the passive enjoyment of science\u2019s benefits is supported by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights\u2019 General Comment No. 2<\/u>5 (2020)<\/u><\/a>, interpreting the right to science enshrined in ICESCR. It is also supported by Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose\u00a0official French <\/u>text<\/u><\/a> speaks of \u201cle droit\u2026 de participer au progr\u00e8s\u00a0scientifique\u201d (rendered in the English <\/u>version<\/u><\/a>\u00a0as\u00a0\u201cthe right\u2026 to share in scientific advancement\u201d).\u00a0To operationalize this right in the context of online platforms, the platforms\u2019 technological systems must not only be transparent\u00a0\u2013 which some regulations already require \u2013\u00a0but also explainable, subject to public scrutiny, and open to meaningful public participation in their designs.<\/p>\n

General Comment No. 25\u00a0has already moved in this direction by bringing these systems within the remit of Article 15. In interpreting the right to science and emphasizing that decisions on emerging technologies must be taken within a human rights framework, General Comment No. 25\u00a0called on State parties to the ICESCR\u00a0to \u201cdevelop mechanisms so that autonomous intelligent systems are designed in ways that avoid discrimination, enable their decisions to be explained, and allow accountability for their use.\u201d It also underscored\u00a0that State parties must\u00a0\u201cestablish a legal framework that imposes on non-State actors a duty of human rights due diligence, especially in the case of big technology companies.\u201d\u00a0What General Comment No. 25\u00a0has not yet fully developed is how to operationalize the participatory dimension of the right to science with respect to these companies\u2019\u00a0technological systems.<\/p>\n

A Human-Right-to-Science Framework in Platform Governance <\/strong><\/p>\n

Applying a human-right-to-science framework in platform governance requires democratic participation, sharing the benefits of scientific progress, and freedom of scientific research.\u00a0Consequently, if the right to science is taken seriously in platform governance, States\u00a0must\u00a0adopt at least three measures: participatory governance mechanisms for affected stakeholders, structured researcher data access, and algorithmic auditability.<\/p>\n

Democratic Participation<\/em>. More than a right to\u00a0passively receive technology, the right to science\u00a0includes a right to\u00a0actively<\/u><\/a>\u00a0participate in <\/u>deciding<\/u><\/a> how scientific advancements should\u00a0contribute to society. When a platform unilaterally designs ranking algorithms, amplification logic, and engagement incentives to learn from and influence its billion users, it monopolizes the decisions over a participatory good\u00a0\u2013 one in which the public holds a right not merely to benefit, but to participate.\u00a0Thus, unlike the right to democratic participation under Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights<\/u><\/a>, the right to science generates the right to participate in the scientific architecture of platforms\u2019 systems, not just their political outputs.<\/p>\n

Platform appeals mechanisms, such as the Oversight Board<\/u><\/a>, the DSA\u2019s\u00a0out-of-court dispute settlement<\/u> bodies<\/u><\/a>, and India\u2019s Grievance Appellate Committee<\/u><\/a>, while providing remedies to users, are inadequate: they allow users to contest individual content decisions but leave the underlying architecture\u00a0entirely beyond the public\u2019s reach. Genuine Article 15 compliance requires meaningful participation in the design of this architecture, not merely the adjudication of what flows through it.\u00a0Systemic-risk assessments (see DSA\u2019s Article 34<\/u><\/a>), while a significant step towards evidence-based oversight of platforms, are likewise insufficient: aside from not guaranteeing<\/u><\/a>\u00a0transparency on platform design\u2019s relation to risks, they do not provide a legal basis for continuous access to and\u00a0participation in platform design.<\/p>\n

States should therefore require platforms to establish\u00a0participatory governance processes that bring scientific communities, civil society, and affected publics into decisions about platforms\u2019 technological designs. This requires\u00a0public participation in managing the risks arising from the technological architecture itself. Given that platforms\u2019 algorithms reinforce social drivers<\/u><\/a> and can have neurophysiological impact<\/u><\/a>\u00a0on users, decisions regarding their design\u00a0\u2013\u00a0including how they optimize attention, predict and shape behavior, and serve certain epistemic interests\u00a0\u2013 should consider stakeholder input and be subject to public oversight.\u00a0Such participation need not entail direct co-design by users, but could include, for instance, independent oversight structures, institutionalized consultation, and representation of affected stakeholders in governance processes.\u00a0The DSA already gestures towards this model, but grounds it on systemic-risk regulation, rather than in the human right to science. This difference matters: a right-to-science grounding transforms these features from contingent regulatory mandates into fundamental human rights requirements. One concrete institutional model would be a platform design council, akin in structure to social media councils<\/u><\/a>, but focused on overseeing platform design.<\/p>\n

Sharing the Benefits of <\/em>Scientific <\/em>Progress<\/em>. Dominant platforms extract enormous scientific value\u00a0\u2013\u00a0knowledge about human psychology, social dynamics, and attention economics\u00a0\u2013\u00a0from the collective behavior and data of their users. A right-to-science framework demands that this knowledge not be locked into exclusive private control but be subject to public scrutiny via meaningful transparency and accountability mechanisms.<\/p>\n

To ensure this, States should mandate structured and legally protected researcher data access. Article 40<\/u><\/a> of the DSA points toward this model, but grounds researcher access in the need for systemic-risk research. A right-to-science grounding would transform it from a mere policy choice to a human rights requirement, enforceable before domestic courts as a right States must protect. This also means that the human right to science provides a normative basis for researchers outside the EU to claim access to relevant platform data within their jurisdictions.<\/p>\n

Extending this argument further, States can also mandate researcher data access\u00a0as a precondition for the liability immunities that platforms currently enjoy. This would prevent platforms from hiding behind these liability immunities to shield their technological designs from independent scrutiny. Technological infrastructure that extracts, learns from,\u00a0and even experiments on user data\u00a0must be subject to public audit.<\/p>\n

Research Freedom<\/em>. Article 15(3) protects \u201cthe freedom indispensable for scientific research.\u201d This generates the researcher data access argument in its strongest form. When platforms restrict API access<\/u><\/a>, impose prohibitive terms of service<\/u><\/a> on academics, or make independent audit\u00a0severely <\/u>compromised<\/u><\/a>, they impede the scientific study of systems that profoundly affect public life. States bear a positive obligation under Article 15(3) to protect this freedom\u00a0\u2013\u00a0not as a mere policy choice, but as a human rights requirement.<\/p>\n

Translating this obligation into the machinery of digital regulation requires algorithmic auditability as a condition of operating epistemic infrastructure at scale. A system whose operations cannot be meaningfully studied by independent scientists is incompatible with this obligation.<\/p>\n

Remembering the Forgotten<\/strong><\/p>\n

The human right to science under Article 15 of the\u00a0ICESCR generates positive State obligations\u00a0that existing regulatory and analytical approaches to platform governance, centered on civil and political rights, have overlooked.\u00a0The right-to-science framework shifts our focus from reacting to harms after they occur to demanding public participation in the design of our digital architecture\u00a0\u2013\u00a0grounded not in contingent policy choices, but in human rights.<\/p>\n

The right to science has been forgotten in the digital sphere for too long. Recovering it widens our legal imagination in addressing the structural challenges posed by online platforms that continuously experiment with and shape human behavior.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Two verdicts in the United States in March 2026 demonstrate that courts are increasingly willing to treat online platforms as designed systems rather than neutral conduits or editorial voices. In Los Angeles, a jury\u00a0found Meta and Google liable on product-design and failure-to-warn theories for building platforms that are addictive and thus dangerous to minors \u2013\u00a0evaluating […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6639],"tags":[7838,3581,5356,7131],"authors":[8032],"article-categories":[6000],"doi":[],"class_list":["post-28977","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-digital-rights","tag-human-rights","tag-international-covenant-on-economic-social-and-cultural-rights","tag-usa","authors-maria-diory-f-rabajante","article-categories-article"],"acf":{"subline":"Recovering the Forgotten Human Right to Science in Platform Governance"},"meta_box":{"doi":"10.17176\/20260629-190102-0"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28977","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28977"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28977\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28985,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28977\/revisions\/28985"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28977"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28977"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28977"},{"taxonomy":"authors","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/authors?post=28977"},{"taxonomy":"article-categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article-categories?post=28977"},{"taxonomy":"doi","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/doi?post=28977"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}