Search & Research

Protections for intermediaries from liability for users’ content are necessary to a vibrant, innovative Internet. These legal protections allow Internet access providers, content hosts, social networks, and others to support a robust online environment for free expression without worrying about potential liability for the material stored on or moving across their networks. Without them, services would be much less willing to accept user-generated content for fear of potential civil and criminal liability. Center for Democracy and Technology Definition

The Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Wikimedia Policy pages both speak openly and in support of intermediary non-liability. The aim is an exchange of ideas; materials shared across the internet. In the US, and Europe specific laws or sections of acts are essential for creating this environment Section 512 of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act (CDA Section 230), and the EU E-Commerce Directive are essential to ensuring to allowing isp, hosts, and social media to waive editorial responsibility. I find it interesting as well that Wikimedia keeps track of and publishes openly any take down notices it executes on. I do respect it as a kind of shareholder accountability, less fiscal and more socially responsible.

One article offers that “generally” Brazil, Russia, China, Thailand, and India have similar approaches to the matter.

Among the reports’ most positive findings, Bakhmetyeva said, is that the five countries generally do not hold internet intermediaries liable for unlawful content posted by users unless they knew about the content and failed to remove it. Most countries usually grant online service providers immunity, referred to as “safe harbor,” provided they comply with certain rules and remove problematic content quickly.Liability of internet ‘intermediaries’ in developing countries

I was struck by the analogy offered in this article by a journalist. Saying that holding internet intermediaries responsible for content is like holding the post office responsible for content. I also think it is fascinating once we get past the democracy, and creativity arguments and explore the potential economic impact of moving away from this model.

Requiring platforms to screen content hurts the entire U.S. economy.
Emerging technology businesses are driving economic growth in the UnitedStates. Placing more onerous requirements on internet services would decrease U.S. GDP by an estimated $44 billion and eliminate more than 425,000 jobs each year. That would be equivalent to giving away the annual GDP of Iceland, Jamaica, and Nicaragua combined and firing all McDonald’s workers in the U.S. Internet Safe Harbors: The Laws That Protect Speech & Creativity

When I read this, I understand a lot better why the US and Europe have the legislative protection it does. It also helps me figure out why countries like Brazil, Russia, China, India, and Thailand have at least the spirit of the laws. The economic multiplier is huge and no self-respecting government is going to get in the way of that economic engine for the sake of vague ideals.