Abstract:For almost a decade now, scholarship in and beyond the ACM FAccT community has been focusing on novel and innovative ways and methodologies to audit the functioning of algorithmic systems. Over the years, this research idea and technical project has matured enough to become a regulatory mandate. Today, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Online Safety Act (OSA) have established the framework within which technology corporations and (traditional) auditors will develop the `practice' of algorithmic auditing thereby presaging how this `ecosystem' will develop. In this paper, we systematically review the auditing provisions in the DSA and the OSA in light of observations from the emerging industry of algorithmic auditing. Who is likely to occupy this space? What are some political and ethical tensions that are likely to arise? How are the mandates of `independent auditing' or `the evaluation of the societal context of an algorithmic function' likely to play out in practice? By shaping the picture of the emerging political economy of algorithmic auditing, we draw attention to strategies and cultures of traditional auditors that risk eroding important regulatory pillars of the DSA and the OSA. Importantly, we warn that ambitious research ideas and technical projects of/for algorithmic auditing may end up crashed by the standardising grip of traditional auditors and/or diluted within a complex web of (sub-)contractual arrangements, diverse portfolios, and tight timelines.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is the development and impact of algorithmic auditing in the legal and political - economic context. Specifically, the article explores the following aspects: 1. **Legal Framework of Algorithmic Auditing**: - The article systematically reviews the audit provisions in the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Online Safety Act (OSA). - These acts provide a practical framework for algorithmic auditing for technology companies and traditional auditors, indicating how this "ecosystem" will develop. 2. **Potential Political and Ethical Tensions**: - The article discusses who may dominate this field and the possible political and ethical tensions that may arise. - For example, how tasks such as independent auditing or evaluating the social context of algorithmic functions will be carried out in practice. 3. **Risks of Traditional Auditing Culture and Strategies**: - The article warns that ambitious research and technology projects may be frustrated by the standards of traditional auditors or diluted in complex contractual arrangements, diverse product portfolios, and tight timelines. 4. **Future Trends of Algorithmic Auditing**: - The article proposes three possible development trajectories: integration with traditional auditing culture, a hybrid practice with separate cultures, and the independent development of algorithmic auditing as an emerging industry. - Each trajectory has its own unique challenges and opportunities, and researchers need to face and address these practical problems. Through these analyses, the article aims to reveal the complexity and uncertainty of algorithmic auditing within the legal and policy frameworks and emphasizes the need to pay attention to the potential impact of traditional auditing culture and strategies on this emerging field. ### Formula Representation Although this article mainly involves legal and social science content, for the sake of information integrity, the following are some sample formulas that may be used (if more specific mathematical expressions are required): - **Risk Assessment Model**: \[ R = f(T, C, A) \] where \( R \) represents risk, \( T \) represents technical complexity, \( C \) represents compliance requirements, and \( A \) represents algorithm characteristics. - **Audit Coverage**: \[ C = \frac{N_a}{N_t} \] where \( C \) represents audit coverage, \( N_a \) represents the number of audited algorithms, and \( N_t \) represents the total number of algorithms. These formulas are used to illustrate key concepts and quantitative indicators in algorithmic auditing to help readers better understand the research content.

Law and the Emerging Political Economy of Algorithmic Audits

Towards algorithm auditing: managing legal, ethical and technological risks of AI, ML and associated algorithms

Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystem

Algorithmic audits of algorithms, and the law

Algorithms as Social-Ecological-Technological Systems: an Environmental Justice Lens on Algorithmic Audits

The right to audit and power asymmetries in algorithm auditing

Having your Privacy Cake and Eating it Too: Platform-supported Auditing of Social Media Algorithms for Public Interest

Problematic Machine Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review of Algorithm Audits

An Algorithmic Equity Toolkit for Technology Audits by Community Advocates and Activists

A Framework for Assurance Audits of Algorithmic Systems

Auditing Work: Exploring the New York City algorithmic bias audit regime

Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance

Everyday Algorithm Auditing: Understanding the Power of Everyday Users in Surfacing Harmful Algorithmic Behaviors

Mapping the Field of Algorithm Auditing: A Systematic Literature Review Identifying Research Trends, Linguistic and Geographical Disparities

The algorithm audit: Scoring the algorithms that score us

Algorithmic governmentality and the space of ethics: Examples from ‘People Analytics’

Addressing the Regulatory Gap: Moving Towards an EU AI Audit Ecosystem Beyond the AIA by Including Civil Society

Auditing Recommender Systems -- Putting the DSA into practice with a risk-scenario-based approach

Auditing of AI: Legal, Ethical and Technical Approaches

Audit and Assurance of AI Algorithms: A framework to ensure ethical algorithmic practices in Artificial Intelligence

Participation and Division of Labor in User-Driven Algorithm Audits: How Do Everyday Users Work together to Surface Algorithmic Harms?