Beyond the Checkbox: Strengthening DSA Compliance Through Social Media Algorithmic Auditing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.18405v1
• Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 12:00:29 GMT
• Title: Beyond the Checkbox: Strengthening DSA Compliance Through Social Media Algorithmic Auditing
• Authors: Sara Solarova, Matúš Mesarčík, Branislav Pecher, Ivan Srba,
• Abstract summary: Algorithmic platforms are required to comply with obligations concerning algorithmic transparency, user protection and privacy.<n>Little is known about current auditing practices and their effectiveness in ensuring such compliance.<n>Our analysis shows significant inconsistencies in methodologies and lack of technical depth when evaluating AI-powered systems.<n>We propose to employ algorithmic auditing to enhance the depth, scale, and independence of compliance assessments.
• Score: 7.686169912623941
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Algorithms of online platforms are required under the Digital Services Act (DSA) to comply with specific obligations concerning algorithmic transparency, user protection and privacy. To verify compliance with these requirements, DSA mandates platforms to undergo independent audits. Little is known about current auditing practices and their effectiveness in ensuring such compliance. To this end, we bridge regulatory and technical perspectives by critically examining selected audit reports across three critical algorithmic-related provisions: restrictions on profiling minors, transparency in recommender systems, and limitations on targeted advertising using sensitive data. Our analysis shows significant inconsistencies in methodologies and lack of technical depth when evaluating AI-powered systems. To enhance the depth, scale, and independence of compliance assessments, we propose to employ algorithmic auditing -- a process of behavioural assessment of AI algorithms by means of simulating user behaviour, observing algorithm responses and analysing them for audited phenomena.

Related papers

• SAFE-QAQ: End-to-End Slow-Thinking Audio-Text Fraud Detection via Reinforcement Learning [52.29460857893198]
  Existing fraud detection methods rely on transcribed text, suffering from ASR errors and missing crucial acoustic cues like vocal tone and environmental context.<n>We propose SAFE-QAQ, an end-to-end comprehensive framework for audio-based slow-thinking fraud detection.<n>Our framework introduces a dynamic risk assessment framework during live calls, enabling early detection and prevention of fraud.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-04T06:09:07Z)
• DATABench: Evaluating Dataset Auditing in Deep Learning from an Adversarial Perspective [70.77570343385928]
  We introduce a novel taxonomy, classifying existing methods based on their reliance on internal features (IF) (inherent to the data) versus external features (EF) (artificially introduced for auditing)<n>We formulate two primary attack types: evasion attacks, designed to conceal the use of a dataset, and forgery attacks, intending to falsely implicate an unused dataset.<n>Building on the understanding of existing methods and attack objectives, we further propose systematic attack strategies: decoupling, removal, and detection for evasion; adversarial example-based methods for forgery.<n>Our benchmark, DATABench, comprises 17 evasion attacks, 5 forgery attacks, and 9
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-08T03:07:15Z)
• Does Machine Unlearning Truly Remove Knowledge? [80.83986295685128]
  We introduce a comprehensive auditing framework for unlearning evaluation comprising three benchmark datasets, six unlearning algorithms, and five prompt-based auditing methods.<n>We evaluate the effectiveness and robustness of different unlearning strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T09:19:07Z)
• Doing Audits Right? The Role of Sampling and Legal Content Analysis in Systemic Risk Assessments and Independent Audits in the Digital Services Act [0.0]
  The European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) requires online platforms to undergo internal and external audits.<n>This article evaluates the strengths and limitations of different qualitative and quantitative methods for auditing systemic risks.<n>We argue that content sampling, combined with legal and empirical analysis, offers a viable method for risk-specific audits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-06T15:02:54Z)
• From Transparency to Accountability and Back: A Discussion of Access and Evidence in AI Auditing [1.196505602609637]
  Audits can take many forms, including pre-deployment risk assessments, ongoing monitoring, and compliance testing. There are many operational challenges to AI auditing that complicate its implementation. We argue that auditing can be cast as a natural hypothesis test, draw parallels hypothesis testing and legal procedure, and argue that this framing provides clear and interpretable guidance on audit implementation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T06:15:46Z)
• Quantifying User Coherence: A Unified Framework for Cross-Domain Recommendation Analysis [69.37718774071793]
  This paper introduces novel information-theoretic measures for understanding recommender systems. We evaluate 7 recommendation algorithms across 9 datasets, revealing the relationships between our measures and standard performance metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T13:02:07Z)
• A Framework for Assurance Audits of Algorithmic Systems [2.2342503377379725]
  We propose the criterion audit as an operationalizable compliance and assurance external audit framework. We argue that AI audits should similarly provide assurance to their stakeholders about AI organizations' ability to govern their algorithms in ways that harms and uphold human values. We conclude by offering a critical discussion on the benefits, inherent limitations, and implementation challenges of applying practices of the more mature financial auditing industry to AI auditing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T14:38:54Z)
• Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystem [0.971392598996499]
  We provide the first comprehensive field scan of the AI audit ecosystem. We identify emerging best practices as well as methods and tools that are becoming commonplace. We outline policy recommendations to improve the quality and impact of these audits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-04T01:40:03Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)
• System Cards for AI-Based Decision-Making for Public Policy [5.076419064097733]
  This work proposes a system accountability benchmark for formal audits of artificial intelligence-based decision-aiding systems. It consists of 56 criteria organized within a four-by-four matrix composed of rows focused on (i) data, (ii) model, (iii) code, (iv) system, and columns focused on (a) development, (b) assessment, (c) mitigation, and (d) assurance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-01T18:56:45Z)
• Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty [66.17147341354577]
  We argue for considering a complementary form of transparency by estimating and communicating the uncertainty associated with model predictions. We describe how uncertainty can be used to mitigate model unfairness, augment decision-making, and build trustworthy systems. This work constitutes an interdisciplinary review drawn from literature spanning machine learning, visualization/HCI, design, decision-making, and fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-15T17:26:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.