Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T15:12:47.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emerging Regulations on Content Moderation and Misinformation Policies of Online Media Platforms: Accommodating the Duty of Care into Intermediary Liability Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2023

Caio C. V. Machado Open the ORCID record for Caio C. V. Machado [Opens in a new window]  and
Thaís Helena Aguiar Open the ORCID record for Thaís Helena Aguiar [Opens in a new window]
Caio C. V. Machado*
Affiliation:
Lawyer and social scientist; Director of Instituto Vero (Brazil) and DPhil Candidate at the University of Oxford (UK). Fellow at Harvard SEAS. Caio holds a master’s of law from the Sorbonne (France) and a master’s in social science from the University of Oxford (UK). He graduated in Law from the University of São Paulo (Brazil)
Thaís Helena Aguiar
Affiliation:
Lawyer; Researcher at Instituto Vero (Brazil). Graduate degree in Data Protection Law from the University of Lisbon (Portugal). Thaís graduated in Law from the Federal University of Pernambuco (Brazil)
*
Corresponding author: Caio C. V. Machado; Email: caio@vero.org.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Disinformation, hate speech and political polarization are evident problems of the growing relevance of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in current societies. To address these issues, decision-makers and regulators worldwide discuss the role of digital platforms in content moderation and in curtailing harmful content produced by third parties. However, intermediary liability rules require a balance that avoids the risks arising from the circulation at scale of harmful content and the risks of censorship if excessive burdens force content providers to adopt a risk-averse posture in content moderation. This piece examines the trend of altering intermediary liability models to include ‘duty of care’ provisions, describing three models in Europe, North America and South America. We discuss how these models are being modified to include greater monitoring and takedown burdens on internet content providers. We conclude with a word of caution regarding this balance between censorship and freedom of expression.

Keywords

Content moderationDisinformationDuty of careHate speechIntermediary liability
Type
Developments in the Field
Information
Business and Human Rights Journal , Volume 8 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Beyond human rights due diligence: What else do we need? , June 2023 , pp. 244 - 251
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Media Defense, ‘Intermediary Liability’, https://www.mediadefence.org/ereader/publications/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online/module-3-access-to-the-internet/intermediary-liability/#:~:text=Intermediary%20liability%20occurs%20where%20governments,copyright%20infringements%2C%20digital%20piracy%2C%20trademark (accessed 30 March 2023).

2 Konstantinos Komaitis, ‘Intermediary Liability: The Hidden Gem’, Internet Society (11 March 2020), https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2020/03/intermediary-liability-the-hidden-gem/ (accessed 30 March 2023); Christoph Schmon and Haley Pedersen, ‘Platform Liability Trends Around the Globe: Taxonomy and Tools of Intermediary Liability’, Electronic Frontier Foundation (25 May 2022), https://www.eff.org/pt-br/deeplinks/2022/05/platform-liability-trends-around-globe-taxonomy-and-tools-intermediary-liability (accessed 30 March 2023).

3 Roberts, Sarah T, ‘Content Moderation’, in Schintler, Laurie A and McNeely, Connie L (eds.), Encyclopedia of Big Data (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022)Google Scholar.

4 Benkler, Yochai, Faris, Robert and Roberts, Hal, Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Amy Ross Arguedas et al, ‘Echo Chambers, Filter Bubbles, and Polarisation: A Literature Review’, https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/echo-chambers-filter-bubbles-and-polarisation-literature-review (accessed 30 March 2023)

6 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) (adopted 16 December 1966).

7 Talita Dias, ‘Tackling Online Hate Speech through Content Moderation: The Legal Framework Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’, Countering Online Hate and its Offline Consequences in Conflict-Fragile Settings (forthcoming) (30 June 2022), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4150909 (accessed 30 March 2023).

8 Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), Pub. L. No. 104-104 (Tit. V), 110 Stat. 133 (8 February 1996), codified at 47 U.S.C. §§223, 230.

9 European Parliament, ‘Reform of the EU Liability Regime for Online Intermediaries’, May 2020, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2020/649404/EPRS_IDA(2020)649404_EN.pdf (accessed 30 March 2023)

10 Flávio Rech Wagner and Diego Rafael Canabarro, ‘Study – An Assessment of Marco Civil’s Intermediary Liability Framework’, Internet Society Brazil Chapter (19 May 2021), https://isoc.org.br/noticia/study-an-assessment-of-marco-civil-s-intermediary-liability-framework (accessed 30 March 2023).

11 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).

12 Ashley Johnson and Daniel Castro, ‘Overview of Section 230: What It Is, Why It Was Created, and What It Has Achieved’, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) (22 February 2021), https://itif.org/publications/2021/02/22/overview-section-230-what-it-why-it-was-created-and-what-it-has-achieved/ (accessed 03 April 2023).

13 Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ‘Section 230’, https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 (accessed 30 March 2023).

14 US Congress, H.R.2281 – 105th Congress (1997–1998): Digital Millennium Copyright Act (28 October 1998), https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2281 (accessed 30 March 2023); Copyright Alliance, ‘Copyright Law Explained: The DMCA Notice and Takedown Process’, https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explained/the-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca/dmca-notice-takedown-process/#:~:text=What%20Is%20a%20DMCA%20Takedown,websites%20and%20other%20internet%20sites (accessed 30 March 2023); US Copyright Office, ‘The Digital Millennium Copyright Act’, https://www.copyright.gov/dmca/ (accessed 30 March 2023).

15 Directive 2000/31/EC, OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, pp 1–16.

16 Law no. 12965/2014 (Marco Civil da Internet) (Brazil), art 19.

17 German Bundestag, Network Enforcement Act (Netzdurchsetzunggesetz, NetzDG); Bundesministerium des Justiz, ‘Act to Improve Enforcement of the Law in Social Networks (Network Enforcement Act, NetzDG) – Basic Information (2017)’, https://www.bmj.de/DE/Themen/FokusThemen/NetzDG/NetzDG_EN_node.html (accessed 30 March 2023).

18 Counter Extremism Project, ‘ICYMI: New Report on Germany’s NetzDG Online Hate Speech Law Shows No Threat of Over-Blocking’ (27 November 2018), https://www.counterextremism.com/press/icymi-new-report-germany%E2%80%99s-netzdg-online-hate-speech-law-shows-no-threat-over-blocking (accessed 30 March 2023).

19 Diana Lee, ‘Germany’s NetzDG and the Threat to Online Free Speech,’ Yale Law School Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic (10 October 2017), https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/germanys-netzdg-and-threat-online-free-speech (accessed 30 March 2023).

20 Library of Congress, ‘Germany: Network Enforcement Act Amended to Better Fight Online Hate Speech’, https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-07-06/germany-network-enforcement-act-amended-to-better-fight-online-hate-speech/ (accessed 30 March 2023).

21 NetzDG § 3, para 1 and explanatory memorandum, 17.

22 Deutscher Bundestag, Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Änderung des Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetzes, Drucksache 19/18792 27.04.2020, https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/187/1918792.pdf (accessed 30 March 2023).

23 European Parliament and Council of Europe, Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, pp 1–102; European Commission, ‘The Digital Services Act: Ensuring a Safe and Accountable Online Environment’, https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act-ensuring-safe-and-accountable-online-environment_en (accessed 30 March 2023).

24 European Parliament and Council of Europe, Regulation (EU) 2022/1925, OJ L 265, 12.10.2022, pp 1–66; European Commission, ‘The Digital Markets Act: Ensuring Fair and Open Digital Markets’, https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en (accessed 30 March 2023).

25 European Commission, ‘The Digital Services Act Package, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act-package (accessed 30 March 2023).

26 Eliska Pirkova, ‘The Digital Services Act: Your Guide to the EU’s New Content Moderation Rules’, Access Now (6 July 2022), https://www.accessnow.org/digital-services-act-eu-content-moderation-rules-guide/ (accessed 30 March 2023).

27 Kozyreva, Anastasia et al, ‘Resolving Content Moderation Dilemmas Between Free Speech and Harmful Misinformation’ (2023) 120:7 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences e2210666120 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

28 Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ‘Section 230’, https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 (accessed 30 March 2023).

29 Jeff Kosseff, ‘A User’s Guide to Section 230, and a Legislator’s Guide to Amending It (or Not)’ (2022) 37:2 Berkeley Technology Law Journal; United States Department of Justice Archives, ‘Department of Justice’s Review of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996’, https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/department-justice-s-review-section-230-communications-decency-act-1996 (accessed 30 March 2023).

30 Senado Federal, Projeto de Lei no. 2630, de 2020 (Lei das Fake News), https://www25.senado.leg.br/web/atividade/materias/-/materia/141944 (accessed 30 March 2023).

31 Câmara dos Deputados, ‘Projeto das fake news tem urgência aprovada e irá a voto na próxima terça’ (25 April 2023), https://www.camara.leg.br/noticias/955642-projeto-das-fake-news-tem-urgencia-aprovada-e-ira-a-voto-na-proxima-terca-acompanhe/ (accessed 30 April 2023).

32 Heloísa Cristaldo, ‘Arthur Lira retira de pauta votação do PL das Fake News’ (2 May 2023), https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/politica/noticia/2023-05/arthur-lira-retira-de-pauta-votacao-do-pl-das-fake-news (accessed 03 May 2023).

33 Supremo Tribunal Federal, ‘STF determina remoção de anúncios com ataques ao PL das Fake News’ (2 May 2023), https://portal.stf.jus.br/noticias/verNoticiaDetalhe.asp?idConteudo=506578&ori=1 (accessed 3 May 2023); Folha, ‘Telegram distorce PL das Fake News e fala em censura e fim da liberdade de expressão’ (9 May 2023), https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2023/05/telegram-distorce-pl-das-fake-news-e-fala-em-censura-e-fim-da-liberdade-de-expressao.shtml (accessed 9 May 2023).

34 Online Safety Bill, HL Bill 87 (Rev) 58/3 (UK), https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137 (accessed 30 March 2023).

35 Markus Trengove et al, ‘A Digital Duty of Care: A Critical Review of the Online Safety Bill’ (13 April 2022), http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4072593 (accessed 30 March 2023).