It's Time to Talk About Internet Companies' Content Moderation Operations

from the transparency dept

As discussed in this post below, on February 2nd, Santa Clara University is hosting a gathering of tech platform companies to discuss how they actually handle content moderation questions. Many of the participants have written short essays about the questions that will be discussed at this event -- and over the next few weeks we'll be publishing many of those essays. This first one comes from Professor Eric Goldman, who put together the conference, explaining the rationale behind the event and this series of essays.

Many user-generated content (UGC) services aspire to build scalable businesses where usage and revenues grow without increasing headcount. Even with advances in automated filtering and artificial intelligence, this goal is not realistic. Large UGC databases require substantial human intervention to moderate anti-social and otherwise unwanted content and activities. Despite the often-misguided assumptions by policymakers, problematic content usually does not have flashing neon signs saying "FILTER ME!" Instead, humans must find and remove that content—especially with borderline cases, where machines can't make sufficiently nuanced judgments.

At the largest UGC services, the number of people working on content moderation is eye-popping. By 2018, YouTube will have 10,000 people on its "trust & safety teams." Facebook's "safety and security team" will grow to 20,000 people in 2018.

Who are these people? What exactly do they do? How are they trained? Who sets the policies about what content the service considers acceptable?

We have surprisingly few answers to these questions. Occasionally, companies have discussed these topics in closed-door events, but very little of this information has been made public.

This silence is unfortunate. A UGC service's decision to publish or remove content can have substantial implications for individuals and the community, yet we lack the information to understand how those decisions are made and by whom. Furthermore, the silence has inhibited the development of industry-wide "best practices." UGC services can learn a lot from each other—if they start sharing information publicly.

On Friday, a conference called "Content Moderation and Removal at Scale" will take place at Santa Clara University. (The conference is sold out, but we will post recordings of the proceedings, and we hope to make a live-stream available). Ten UGC services will present "facts and figures" about their content moderation operations, and five panels will discuss cutting-edge content moderation issues. For some services, this conference will be the first time they've publicly revealed details about their content moderation operations. Ideally, the conference will end the industry's norm of silence.

In anticipation of the conference, we assembled ten essays from conference speakers discussing various aspects of content moderation. These essays provide a sample of the conversation we anticipate at the conference. Expect to hear a lot more about content moderation operational issues in the coming months and years.

Eric Goldman is a Professor of Law, and Co-Director of the High Tech Law Institute, at Santa Clara University School of Law. He has researched and taught Internet Law for over 20 years, and he blogs on the topic at the Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Filed Under: companies, content moderation, filtering, intermediary liability, internet platforms, moderation

FTC Takes Down Another Revenge Porn Site

from the an-apparent-impossibility-given-the-lack-of-a-federal-revenge-porn-law dept

There ought to be a law, say many people opposed to revenge porn. And so they craft laws with an eye on prosecution but not so much on the First Amendment, tending to treat collateral damage as acceptable so long as revenge porn site operators are criminally charged. But the proposed laws are more than bad, they're extraneous. Existing laws are still taking down revenge porn purveyors, as we've covered previously at this site.

The FTC has taken down another revenge porn site and secured a judgment against one of its operations, all without having to having to hack away at protected speech or undermine Section 230 immunity. MyEx.com -- a site "dedicated solely to revenge porn" -- has been targeted in an FTC complaint.

According to the complaint, visitors to MyEx.com can rate the videos and pictures they see and post comments about the victims. At various times, the site included victims’ full date of birth, personal email address, telephone number, and links to social media profiles, along with the intimate images.

The FTC alleges that the defendants were aware that many of the individuals did not agree to having their intimate images and personal information posted to MyEx.com. As of December 2017, there were approximately 12,620 entries on the site, according to the complaint.

The complaint [PDF] contains extensive documentation of the site runners' activities, including charging people anywhere from $499 up to $2,800 for removal of pictures and information, as well as the site's operator creating a wholly (and admittedly) fictitious business entity to hide behind.

Defendant Applegate registered the domain MyEx.com through domain name registrar GoDaddy from November 2011 through at least June 2013. He provided GoDaddy the email address shad@myex.com as his contact address.

In May of 2013, GoDaddy informed Defendant Applegate of reports of child exploitation and underage content on MyEx.com. GoDaddy also informed Defendant Applegate that an investigator from an internet-crimes-against-children taskforce and a police detective were attempting to get in touch with the website operators.

Also in May 2013, Defendant Applegate changed the contact name provided to GoDaddy for the MyEx.com website to “Eun Kim” and changed the contact address to Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands, while leaving the contact email address as shad@myex.com for a period of time. After GoDaddy inquired about this change, Defendant Applegate told GoDaddy in a message, “its [sic] not a company it’s a made up name for the address & [sic]; phone number in the Netherlands. The [expletive] domain is in my godaddy [sic] account.” Defendant Applegate then moved MyEx.com to a different registrar, Eurodns. He provided Eurodns the contact name “Eun Kim” and changed MyEx.com to be associated with the fictional business entity, Web Solutions B.V. He provided a contact address of Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands, which was the same address he told GoDaddy that he made up.

This fictitious address was also used to ignore DMCA complaints and other requests for removal of content.

Under the “Contact Us” page, the site stated, “Myex.com has no removals [sic] policy. If you are an adult who has been submitted to this site tough luck [sic].” The page went on to state, “If you have the need to send mail please address it to MyEx.com c/o Web Solutions B.V. Attn Legal Department DMCA Complaints. Websolutions Netherlands, Singel 540 1017 Amsterdam The Netherlands Attn: Legal Department.”

Paid removals were handled in a similarly shady fashion. The site's operators made those seeking content removal wire money to someone named "Shelly Mae Garcia" who supposedly lived in the Philippines. Those who refused to pay the extortion were invited to send snail mail to the fake address in the Netherlands.

The FTC finds the site owners to be in violation of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices by business entities. As is detailed in the complaint, there's no shortage of evident harm created by the site's posting of intimate photos without the consent of those depicted, along with as much personal info (names, addresses, social media accounts) as the site could harvest.

The settlement [PDF] with one of the site's owners, Neil Infante, prohibits him from posting intimate photos without the explicit, written consent of the photo's subject. It also subjects Infante to 20 years of FTC monitoring and a $205,000 fine. (It appears the FTC will only be able to collect $15,000 of this fine. The FTC's press release states the rest of the fine will be suspended as Infante has shown "an inability to pay more.") Infante is also prohibited from charging takedown fees for any content whose removal is requested. The FTC is still seeking to obtain judgments against the other participants in the revenge porn operation and is ordering Infante to turn over as much info as he has on his revenge porn colleagues.

This revenge porn operation is effectively dead. The nonconsensual part of the operation is blocked by the FTC judgment and the inability to charge removal fees pretty eliminates the most profitable revenue stream. It's unclear what the future holds for Neil Infante, but it appears the Republican Senate race in Ohio (Infante's home state) is suddenly in need of a new frontrunner. Perhaps FTC judgment recipient and former revenge porn site operator Craig Brittain could send his colleague a few ideas on to how to MAGA the hell out of the nation as a Senate race bottom-feeder.

Filed Under: cda 230, ftc, intermediary liability, revenge porn
Companies: myex

Senator Portman Promises To Pass Bills To Harm Tech Companies If They Won't Support SESTA

from the this-is-how-you-legislate? dept

Senator Rob Portman, one of the authors of a terrible piece of legislation in SESTA, has gone on the offensive in trying to get the bill passed. He gave a rousing speech on the Senate floor, in which he (1) misrepresented his own bill, (2) misrepresented CDA 230, and (3) threatened to pass even worse legislation if more tech companies don't support SESTA.

I may not be an expert on how to legislate... but this does not seem like a good way to legislate.

Let's start with the most incredible part: the threat to pass even worse legislation if the tech industry can't support SESTA more broadly (and, remember, many of the biggest tech companies already support the bill). And, really, the main thing blocking the bill at this point is the fact that the House decided to go in a different direction with the bill, recognizing the myriad problems with SESTA. But, to Portman, it's all tech's fault, and thus this bizarre nonsensical threat:

If you don’t start cracking down on this obvious crime against humanity, which is what I believe trafficking is, I think you’re going to see much, much broader legislation to deal with the internet.

But, of course, all of the big tech companies ALREADY do "crackdown" on sex trafficking, whenever they're aware of it happening via their platforms. Notice that Portman doesn't actually name any of the tech firms as facilitating this -- he just insists they do. The only company he names, naturally, is Backpage. But he fails to mention that Backpage shut down its adult ads section due to lots of political pressure, and that the company is not immune from lawsuits for content it actually creates, and that the company is not immune from the DOJ filing a federal lawsuit, and that there's a still ongoing grand jury investigation into Backpage. In short -- existing law seems to be working just fine.

So why is Portman saying tech companies need to crack down on sex trafficking or he'll help pass an even worse law? It makes no sense, and is no way to competently legislate. It's a way to vindictively legislate in a manner that will have disastrous consequences for the internet, innovation and for free speech -- including the free speech of those who are actually working to stop sex trafficking, or who are victims who need help. SESTA makes the problem worse. Blaming intermediaries doesn't help anyone stop sex trafficking. It doesn't provide any new tools for law enforcement to go after sex traffickers. It does create incentives for tech platforms to not look to clean up their sites -- the exact opposite of what Portman is talking about above -- because it includes a "knowledge" standard. And what's the best way to avoid having knowledge? By NOT LOOKING.

It's a bad bill that will make the problem of sex trafficking worse, not better.

The rest of Portman's talk is filled with other misleading or simply wrong statements.

Here’s the tragic part of this. Not only are more and more lives being ruined, more and more heartbreaking stories, but it’s because of a federal law that provides immunity to these websites. So it comes right back here, right to these desks, right to this Congress, right to us as legislators to fix this problem—not try to smooth it over, but to actually fix the problem, which is that some of these online trafficking sites are immune from prosecution because of a federal law. It was a well-intended law. It was written 21 years ago—the Communications Decency Act.

No. It's because horrible human beings are engaged in sex trafficking, and the focus should be on tracking them down and arresting them. SESTA doesn't help with that, and in fact makes it more difficult. Also, more importantly, the immunity provided to websites by CDA 230 is limited. It doesn't apply to federal crimes (remember that federal grand jury mentioned above?). It doesn't apply to content created by the website. It doesn't apply to the people actually creating the content (i.e., the sex traffickers themselves). Why doesn't Portman admit to any of this? Because it destroys the rationale for the bill.

Ironically it was put in place, in part, to make it a crime to send pornography to kids online, but it’s been twisted and used by these trafficking sites to provide them the ability to say ‘you can’t touch us. You can’t go after us.’

Uh, Senator Portman is leaving out a key piece of all this: which is that while it's true that the CDA was put in place to make it a crime to send pornography online, that whole part of the law was thrown out as unconstitutional and a First Amendment violation. It's not that the law was "twisted." It's just that the part he's talking about was BLATANTLY A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION that Senator Portman has sworn to uphold. The part that remained of the CDA -- Section 230 -- is the part that actually encourages sites to filter, moderate or remove content by limiting liability.

SESTA changes that equation and actually removes much of the incentive to moderate the content. It creates incentives for the companies not to even look.

Part of what the law says in trying to promote the internet is that if you post somebody else’s material on your site, you’re not liable.

This wasn't to "promote the internet," it was to correctly apply basic principles of liability. You don't blame the tool. You blame the user. If a platform hosts content, you blame who created the content. Also, Portman is misprepresenting CDA 230 in the sentence above. While it's true that it does protect platforms that "post somebody's else's material," that's not the key part of it. That implies that CDA 230 is designed to protect the deliberate action of "posting somebody else's material." But the law is even more about content posted by users. In most cases, it is not the site "posting somebody else's material," it's users posting their own material. And NOTHING in the law says that those users can't be prosecuted if the material violates the law. It just says you don't blame the tool, who is the service provider hosting the material.

All we’re saying is if you know that this involves trafficking, and Senator Blumenthal talked about his experience as a prosecutor, I mean this is a high bar—the knowing standard, then you can’t get away with this.

Except the standard, as written, is not actually that high. It was improved from its even worse initial draft, but is still quite broad, and would leave tons of sites completely at risk of frivolous lawsuits.

By the way, the other side of the argument is by the tech community, some of whom support this legislation, some of whom do not. But for the people in technology who are concerned about this, I just have to tell you, I don’t get it. This is very narrowly crafted to this issue. We’re not trying to affect the freedom of the internet, just the opposite.

IT IS NOT NARROWLY CRAFTED. That's what people keep trying to explain to Portman. He can repeat "it's narrowly crafted" over and over again, and people who actually have experience with attacks on internet platforms know that, as written, it will lead to a lot of frivolous litigation and fishing expeditions -- and widespread censorship to avoid liability, along with LESS activity by platforms to moderate the content. THAT is the concern. No one who is fighting SESTA is arguing that we shouldn't go after those responsible for sex trafficking. We're explaining how this bill DOES NOT DO THAT and not only will very likely MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE, but it will also have massive collateral damage -- including damage that will make it harder to stop sex trafficking.

And for those in the tech community who continue to oppose this legislation, I ask you to look into your hearts and think about the impact this is having on families all across the country.

Yes. That's why Portman can't name a SINGLE site other than Backpage that he claims is responsible here (and he never mentions that Backpage stopped adult ads). Because these sites do care about this issue and they don't allow or encourage sex trafficking on their platforms. So why is he asking them to "do more" when the only things in his bill will encourage these sites to "do less"? And why is he threatening to pass even worse legislation?

Is this really how Senator Portman legislates? By misrepresenting facts? By misrepresenting existing law? By misrepresenting his own bill? By misrepresenting what companies currently do? And then by threatening to pass even worse legislation if companies don't do the thing they've always done already?

Filed Under: cda 230, intermediary liability, rob portman, sesta, sex trafficking

Chuck Johnson Sues Twitter, Copying Dennis Prager's Lawsuit Against YouTube

from the public-square dept

Last summer, we wrote about an important Supreme Court case, Packingham v. North Carolinia, which made the fairly important ruling that the internet was so central to everyday life that courts could not ban people from the internet, even if they were convicted of a horrific crime. It was an important ruling -- but almost immediately, some people worried that some would interpret the ruling in a way to suggest that online service providers, themselves, could not kick people off of their service. That's not what the ruling actually says, but it's possible to quote it out of context to suggest as much.

And, indeed, we've started to see such cases brought against internet companies. The case Dennis Prager brought against YouTube, for example, cites Packingham to argue that it's somehow unconstitutional to filter his videos with warning labels. And now we can add famed internet troll Chuck Johnson to the list, as he's filed a lawsuit against Twitter, long after the site permanently banned Johnson from using their platform.

As we noted with the Prager/YouTube case, it's unlikely this case will go anywhere. Courts have held out, repeatedly, that platforms have the right to operate however they want regarding letting people use their services or not (the big distinction with Packingham was that was the government denying individuals access to the internet, not private operators). And there is extensive case law around Section 230 of the CDA as well, which states in fairly plain language that sites not only can filter and moderate however they want without liability, but actually encourages them to do so. There is, of course, at least some amount of irony that it was conservatives who were complaining about "bad stuff" (mainly porn) online who pushed for incentives in the CDA to get internet services to censor via filtering... and now it's "conservative" commentators like Prager and Johnson, who are suing because those sites are filtering, as is explicitly encouraged by the law.

In short, I imagine that Johnson's lawsuit against Twitter will go about as well as his lawsuit against Gawker, which didn't go very well.

The arguments in Johnson's case are the same ridiculous arguments in the Prager case. And I mean that... they're almost verbatim. Here's from the first cause of action in the Prager case:

Article I, section 2 of the California Constitution protects the liberty of speech and association, especially in public, quasi-public, and limited public spaces.

In YouTube, Defendants created and maintain a public forum or its functional equivalent for the public to express and exchange views and ideas, or in the alternative at least a quasi- or limited public forum. Defendants further act as state actors because Defendants and the YouTube site perform an exclusively and traditionally public function by regulating free speech within a public forum.

And from the Johsnon case:

Article I, section 2 of the California Constitution protects the liberty of speech and association, especially in public, quasi-public, and limited public spaces....

In Twitter, Defendant created and maintains a public forum or its functional equivalent for the public to express and exchange views and ideas, or in the alternative at least a quasi- or limited public forum.

They're not identical, and each case fleshes out more specifics about the platform in question they're suing, but the arguments are remarkably similar (and, no, they're not using the same lawyers). Johnson's lawsuit gets particularly silly. You can read the whole thing yourself if you'd like, but it's based on the preposterous notion that Twitter has to allow everyone on their platform and can't kick people off. As with the Prager suit, this complaint makes strong reliance on the idea that Johnson was banned for his political views, rather than because he was a troll who regularly went on the attack, often accused of promoting false information or making trollishly outrageous claims.

But, even if he was banned for his political views (and, again, he wasn't), Twitter actually has the legal right to put in place just such a ban. It would be stupid and counterproductive -- which is why Twitter does not actually ban people over such things -- but it would be legal. Johnson's lawsuit even points out that Twitter's current terms of service state: "We may suspend or terminate your accounts or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason." And then immediately whines that they had "no valid business reason" for banning him. First off, that's not true. There were lots of valid business reasons for banning him -- in the form of lots of users complaining about his behavior and tons of people threatening to quit Twitter if the site didn't get rid of certain trolls.

Again, though, even that doesn't impact the legal analysis here. Twitter is within its clear legal rights to remove any user from its service.

Like with the Prager case, we expect the courts not to allow this case to go very far at all. And, unlike in the Packingham case, this really is a situation where if one social media site doesn't want you, there are lots of other alternatives. Johnson told Buzzfeed (who broke the news of the lawsuit) that this was an important First Amendment case:

“This is going to be a very serious case over the freedom of the internet,” Johnson told BuzzFeed News. “And whether people have the right to say what they mean and mean what they say.”

Except... that's not what the case is actually about. Johnson is free to say whatever he wants. He is not free to force private companies to host that speech. If there is any First Amendment argument here at all, it is on Twitter's side, in that the First Amendment gives it the right to present its own site the way it wants to -- and that includes kicking off people it feels are behaving badly.

Filed Under: cda 230, chuck johnson, dennis prager, first amendment, free speech, intermediary liability, platforms
Companies: twitter, youtube

Picking Up Where We Left Off: A 2018 Policy To-Do List For Washington

from the innovation-and-policy dept

From January 9-12, thousands of tech experts, innovators, media professionals, politicians and business leaders from around the world pour into Las Vegas for CES 2018. It’s an incredibly exciting time: Attendees get to see the most innovative technologies and trends that will change the face of industries across the globe, from health care and entertainment to automobiles and home appliances.

I’m always proud of CES – proud of the innovators who have traveled a long road to get to the floor; proud of all my behind-the-scenes colleagues who dedicate months to putting the show together; and proud the show inspires thoughtful conversations and partnerships that lead to life changing products, new businesses and jobs.

But CES also makes me proud to be an American. Our nation’s tech industry is the envy of the world. When you combine induced, indirect and direct impact, the U.S. tech sector accounts for over ten percent of our GDP and 15.3 million jobs. It has produced brands and companies that are known and needed all over the world. And nowhere is that more obvious than at CES.

The reason our country can host a show like CES is because we have a legal and policy framework designed to allow our tech industry to flourish. From our education system that encourages originality and ingenuity, to our openness to immigrants and their innovative ideas, to a pro-business regulatory framework that lowers barriers to entry for entrepreneurs, to the First Amendment and its protection of ideas, no matter how controversial, our system rewards those who have the creativity to solve a problem and the courage to make their idea a reality.

If policymakers want to preserve our global leadership and support this vital industry, they must act at this crucial moment. With the start of the new year comes the start of a new legislative session, and the opportunity to prioritize policies that can strengthen the framework that has allowed the tech industry to flourish. As Washington gets down to business in 2018, here are some ways they can do this:

• Promote fair and free trade. We can’t mistake American ingenuity for isolationism. For instance, threats to impose tariffs on Chinese goods or hinder trade with China – a crucial trade partner of the U.S. tech industry – would harm, not help, tech innovation. Our supply chain is global and must be kept open.
• Protect innovative tech companies from crushing liability costs. One of the cornerstones of internet freedom are the “safe harbor” and “fair use” principles in domestic law. These laws allow users and entrepreneurs to innovate, free from ruinous nuisance lawsuits and should be added to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). But Congress is questioning these principles and considering changes that would seriously compromise the free, open flow of information these companies now help to sustain. This in turn would hurt small businesses across the country, many of whom rely on the internet to market their products internationally. By upholding these safe harbor laws and other copyright protections, federal leaders can maintain a strong economy and secure a stable internet for future innovators. Not only should these principles be enshrined and protected in domestic law, they should become a template for our trade agreements. We have a chance to do so now with a digital chapter in NAFTA that embodies these principles.
• Pursue immigration reform that opens our borders to the world’s best and brightest. Right now the future of immigration policy is unclear, but it is obvious that we need to attract the best and brightest if we want to maintain our global lead in innovation. More than 50 percent of our country’s billion-dollar startups were created by immigrants according to the National Foundation for American Policy. While we are closing our borders, other countries are copying our strategy of attracting the best and brightest.
• Invest in infrastructure. The rise of the Internet of Things, smart cities and self-driving vehicles means that the world as we know it will change significantly over the course of the next several decades. By getting a head start on infrastructure investments, including 5G broadband and highway construction, federal leaders can help smooth this transition and pave the way for new levels of connectivity. Simply allowing utility companies to lay broadband in every federally funded roads project is an easy bipartisan start.
• Focus in on patent reform. Many of the startups at CES have horror stories about patent trolls – companies that threaten patent lawsuits in hopes of collecting money out of court. Patent trolls are undermining the strength of our patent system and bleeding $80 billion annually from our economy. Too many businesses are dragged down by their lawsuits and threats. Congress must act to protect innovators and ensure we maintain the best intellectual property protection system in the world.
• Pursue a business-friendly regulatory framework. President Trump has taken the lead on this, spearheading major reform soon after his inauguration. Congress must continue his efforts, creating policies that encourage innovation and lower barriers to entrepreneurship.
• Protecting freedom of speech across the board. We’ve seen many attacks on freedom of speech this year from all across the political spectrum. Financial freedom is important for innovators, but low taxes and limited regulatory interference mean nothing if innovators don’t have the intellectual freedom to try out new ideas without fear of legal repercussions. It’s high time we act to protect this first and most vital of our freedoms.

There’s no denying it’s been a challenging year politically, no matter your perspective. But with the new year comes a renewal of opportunity. Washington must put aside petty partisan arguments and work together to protect the framework that has led to our flourishing. And by doing this, we can protect the creativity and ingenuity of American innovation for generations to come.

Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,200 consumer technology companies, and author of the New York Times best-selling books, Ninja Innovation: The Ten Killer Strategies of the World's Most Successful Businesses and The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream. His views are his own. Connect with him on Twitter: @GaryShapiro

Filed Under: ces, dc, fair use, free speech, free trade, immigration, innovation, intermediary liability, patents, policy

German Hate Speech Law Goes Into Effect, Turning Social Media Platforms Into Gov't Revenue Generators

from the gentlemen:-start-your-paperwork dept

Social media platforms doing business in Germany can look forward to a year filled with fines of up to €50m. Germany's hate speech law went into effect on January 1st, providing the country with a new revenue stream it can tap into for the rest of whatever.

The Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG) law was passed at the end of June 2017 and came into force in early October.

The social networks were given until the end of 2017 to prepare themselves for the arrival of NetzDG.

The law gives social media platforms 24 hours to remove "obviously illegal" content. This, of course, raises the question about how obvious "obviously illegal" content needs to be to trigger the 24-hour deletion requirement. Presumably, the government gets to decide how "obvious" the illegality is and how often it gets to collect millions of euros.

In what must be considered a show of government largesse, one week will be allowed to handle "complex" removal orders -- again, something likely determined solely by the German government. Given Germany's ultra-weird relationship with its Nazi past, the difference between complex and simple takedown demands isn't likely to be clear cut, putting companies in the path of fines and further German government grousing.

I understand that American companies are somewhat obliged to follow local laws when providing services overseas, but they should not be put in the position of being held criminally and civilly liable for the posts of their users. They can attempt to moderate content with an eye on local statutes, but the fines for posting "obviously illegal" content should be levied on the person posting it, rather than the service provider.

This ridiculous shifting of liability is even more egregious in Germany. Not only are service providers fined for not removing illegal content, EMPLOYEES of these companies can be directly fined as well.

[T]he law also provides for fines of up to €5m for the person each company designates to deal with the complaints procedure if it doesn’t meet requirements.

We often see government officials claiming the billions of dollars in profits Google, Facebook, et al rack up somehow should result in perfect compliance with every esoteric, content-related complaint worldwide. But no one's claimed individual employees tasked with government compliance are callous billionaires, and yet the German hate speech law makes that equation with its willingness to bankrupt individuals for not responding to government removal demands fast enough.

There are concerns in Germany this law could lead to government censorship and a restriction of free speech. These concerns have already materialized somewhat indirectly. A regime with an interest in censorship and curtailing criticism has already pushed out a carbon-copy of Germany's law. This gives Russia the opportunity to push companies into performing censorship on its behalf, with Germany to point at when critics start questioning Russia's actions.

Filed Under: germany, hate speech, intermediary liability, social media
Companies: facebook, google

Gov't Committee: UK Should Move To Holding Platforms Liable For Third-Party Content Post-Brexit

from the stop-trying-to-help,-you-idiots dept

Going Brexit is to swear off logic, apparently. TorrentFreak reports that, in addition to everything else the UK's newfound independence will muck up, it's going to start doing an even more horrendous job policing the internet.

The protection offered by the E-Commerce Directive is a hot topic right now, one which necessarily involves the UK. However, with the UK due to leave the EU at 11pm local time on Friday 29 March, 2019, it will then be free to make its own laws. It’s now being suggested that as soon as Brexit happens, the UK should introduce new laws that hold tech companies liable for “illegal content” that appears on their platforms.

The advice can be found in a new report published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Titled “Intimidation in Public Life”, the report focuses on the online threats and intimidation experienced by Parliamentary candidates and others.

The report summary, thankfully, puts all the bad news up front. Following a list of (terrible) recommendations, the report quotes government officials wringing their hands about the fact terrible people exist.

Lord Bew, Chair of the Committee, said:

This level of vile and threatening behaviour, albeit by a minority of people, against those standing for public office is unacceptable in a healthy democracy. We cannot get to a point where people are put off standing, retreat from debate, and even fear for their lives as a result of their engagement in politics. This is not about protecting elites or stifling debate, it is about ensuring we have a vigorous democracy in which participants engage in a responsible way which recognises others’ rights to participate and to hold different points of view.

Lord Bew's beef should be with "vile and threatening minority of people," rather than platforms. But of course it isn't. Like many government officials, Bew believes the liable party should be the host of the offending content, rather than the actual offenders. The Committee wants to handle questionable content in the most ineffectual and dangerous way possible:

Government should bring forward legislation to shift the liability of illegal content online towards social media companies.

And if that's not dumb enough, there's this recommendation which is sure to have a damaging effect on political speech -- normally the sort of things governments should strive to protect.

Government should consult on the introduction of a new offence in electoral law of intimidating Parliamentary candidates and party campaigners.

Cool. A brand new #PoliticalLivesMatter law that won't be abused by every thin-skinned politician who finds criticism intimidating.

And that's not all. As TorrentFreak notes, the report also suggests adding new intermediary liability for things having nothing to do with "intimidation in public life."

“Currently, social media companies do not have liability for the content on their sites, even where that content is illegal. This is largely due to the EU E-Commerce Directive (2000), which treats the social media companies as ‘hosts’ of online content. It is clear, however, that this legislation is out of date,” the report reads.

If this goes through, platforms could be held liable for IP infringement and defamation, even though those acts were committed by platform users.

Fortunately, these are still just recommendations. There's no telling how this all will work out when the UK's divorce is official. But past actions by the UK government hardly raise hope it won't decide to go after the largest targets, rather than the proper targets, when finally free of EU regulations.

Filed Under: blame, brexit, e-commerce directive, eu, hosts, intermediary liability, social media, uk

It Was Twenty(-odd) Years Ago Today When The Internet Looked Much Different Than It Does Now

from the time-machine dept

Last week, Mike and I were at a conference celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Reno v. ACLU, a seminal case that declared that the First Amendment applied online. What makes the case so worth a conference celebrating it is not just what it meant as a legal matter – it's a significant step forward in First Amendment jurisprudence – but also what it meant as a practical matter. This decision was hugely important in allowing the internet to develop into what it is today, and that evolution may not be something we adequately appreciate. It's easy to forget and pretend the internet we know today was always a ubiquitous presence, but that wasn't always so, and it wasn't so back then. Indeed, it's quite striking just how much has changed in just two decades.

So this seemed like a good occasion to look back at how things were then. The attached paper is a re-publication of the honors thesis I wrote in 1996 as a senior at the University of California at Berkeley. As the title indicates, it was designed to study internet adoption among my fellow students, who had not yet all started using it. Even those who had were largely dependent on the University to provide them their access, and that access had only recently started to be offered on any significant a campus-wide basis. And not all of the people who had started using the internet found it to be something their lives necessarily needed. (For instance, when asked if they would continue to use the internet after the University no longer provided their access, a notable number of people said no.) This study tried to look at what influences or reasons the decision to use, or not use, the internet pivoted upon.

I do of course have some pause, now a few decades further into my career, calling attention to work I did as a stressed-out undergraduate. However, I still decided to dig it up and publish it, because there aren't many snapshots documenting internet usage from that time. And that's a problem, because it's important to understand how the internet transitioned from being an esoteric technology used only by some into a much more pervasive one seemingly used by nearly everyone, and why that change happened, especially if we want to understand how it will continue to change, and how we might want to shape that change. All too often it seems tech policy is made with too little serious consideration of the sociology behind how people use the internet – the human decisions internet usage represents – and it really needs to be part of the conversation more. Hopefully studies like this one can help with that.

Filed Under: cda 230, first amendment, free speech, history, intermediary liability, reno v. aclu

Court Tosses Cop's Attempt To Sue Twitter And Facebook For Someone Killing Cops In Texas

from the lots-of-wrongs-don't-make-a-right...-or-make-anyone-whole dept

Presumably prestigious law firm 1-800-LAW-FIRM is winning some cases somewhere. But it's not having any luck with its dubious legal theories related to social media companies and "material support for terrorism." The firm hasn't racked up any wins in these cases (as far as I'm aware). The page touting its "anti-terrorism" lawsuits has a lot to say about the filings, but provides no details on the firm's lack of success. And yet, the lawsuits keep flowing.

Not content to represent family members of people killed in terrorist attacks, 1-800-LAW-FIRM is also representing law enforcement officers not killed or injured by terrorists, but rather ones who happened to be on the scene of shootings targeting cops. Again, the real villain, according to this law firm (and its plaintiffs), is social media.

In January, Dallas Police Sergeant Demetrick Pennie sued [PDF] Twitter, Google, and Facebook, claiming they were directly responsible for "radicalizing" Micah Johnson, who shot and killed five police officers in Dallas, Texas. According to Pennie, the social media companies actively allowed and encouraged terrorist use of their platforms to spread their message and attract participants.

Pennie's exploration of the outer limits of culpability has come to an end, netting 1-800-LAW-FIRM (and Excolo Law) a loss in its "sue social media for violent acts committed by individuals" sweepstakes.

In dismissing Monday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero found the plaintiffs failed to show a clear link between Hamas’ use of the companies’ social media networks and the Dallas shooting. Many similar cases have been filed, usually unsuccessfully.

“Absent plausible allegations that Hamas itself was in some way a substantial factor in the attack, there is no basis to conclude that any support provided by defendants to Hamas was a substantial factor,” Spero wrote.

The lawsuit was so lacking in connective arguments, Judge Spero never even had a chance to address the Section 230 immunity that likely would have seen it tossed anyway. The plaintiff posed a novel theory: that payments of ad revenue to alleged terrorists strips immunity, but the court says the plaintiff needs a lot more factual assertions on his side for the judge to even reach that question. From the decision [PDF]:

Because Plaintiffs‘ failure to allege a causal connection between Hamas and the Dallas shooting is reason enough to dismiss all claims, the Court declines to resolve the question of if or how the CDA applies where an interactive service provider shares advertising revenue with a content developer that has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization.

Unfortunately, a string of losses all predicated on the same lousy legal theory aren't going to head off further wastes of legal resources in the future. Suing terrorists may be almost impossible, but suing social media companies isn't the solution. The person responsible for violent acts is ultimately the person who committed them. I understand the urge to seek some form of closure or redress when loved ones and colleagues are killed by terrorist acts, but trying to find a way to make Twitter, et al pay for violent acts they aren't plausibly connected to will do little more than make the internet worse for everyone.

Filed Under: demetrick pennie, intermediary liability, lawsuit, micah johnson, police, social media
Companies: facebook, twitter

Congress Fixes More Problems With FOSTA Bill... But It Still Needs Work

from the getting-better... dept

Congress continues to push for a bill to deal with the use of the internet for sex trafficking. Over the past few months we've discussed multiple attempts at this. Most of the initial action happened on the Senate side, with SESTA -- the "Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act." That was a terrible bill with many, many problems. The Senate then put forth a revised version that had marginal improvements, but still many, many problems. While it was voted out of committee, Senator Wyden put a hold on it, noting how bad it would be for the internet and free speech.

From there, the action moved over to the House, with its version, called FOSTA -- the "Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act." Believe it or not, FOSTA as initially written was even worse than SESTA. However, there's now a planned markup of the bill in the House Judiciary tomorrow, and it's over a totally revised "manager's amendment" from Judicary chair Rep. Bob Goodlatte, rather than the original FOSTA that was sponsored by Rep. Ann Wagner. As law professor Eric Goldman points out, of the four bills presented so far, the Goodlatte Manager's Amendment is by far the best, but still has significant problems that should be corrected if the bill is to move forward.

One oddity: the new FOSTA doesn't just focus on sex trafficking, but expands to all online prostitution. This seems both dangerous and unnecessary. While there are legitimate debates to be had about whether or not prostitution should be legalized, the issues around prostitution are clearly different than the issues of coerced sex trafficking. Yes, there is obviously some overlap between trafficking and prostitution, but automatically sweeping both issues together is problematic for a whole host of policy reasons. Everyone should be reasonably against trafficking of unwilling individuals. The issues around willing and consentual transactions involving sex are a lot more complicated. Conflating both in a single bill seems... dangerous.

However, some elements of FOSTA are clearly better than what we saw in SESTA. Instead of focusing on punching a giant hole in CDA 230, the new FOSTA takes a smarter approach. It first creates a new crime (outside of CDA 230), which would be 18 USC 2421A, which would make it a crime to take actions "with the intent to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person." What's important here is the "intent" standard. The previous bills all used some form of "knowledge" or "knowing conduct." Here, you need to have the actual intent to promote or facilitate prostitution, which is a much more reasonable standard for making these actions criminal. The crime can be "enhanced" if the party engages in "acts of reckless disregard of the fact that such conduct contirubted to sex trafficking violation[s]" but that's only once the intent is already shown. Again, this seems like a more reasonable approach, and would solve the problems we had with the knowledge standard -- and the fear that this would disincentivize monitoring or helping law enforcement under SESTA.

Still, as Eric Goldman notes, this bill could lead to "dubious investigations" and fishing expeditions as prosecutors look to show "intent" on platforms with many, many users, where some of those users may be engaged in prostitution:

Consider how this could play out for giants like Google or Facebook. Despite their best efforts, surely both networks have some online prostitution activity. Let’s hypothesize that 0.01% of their site usage relates to online prostitution. Across a billion-member userbase, a 0.01% online prostitution usage converts to 100,000 users. So even if Google and Facebook get it 99.99% right, state and local prosecutors could still point to tens of thousands of online prostitution incidents as circumstantial evidence of the services’ “intent” to promote or facilitate online prostitution. And the statutory baseline of 5+ prostitutes frames the issue to make the online giants look like hotbeds of prostitution activity. So even if a prosecutor’s case will fail in court, substitute FOSTA would give state and local prosecutors a lot of juice to go after the Internet giants.

Goldman suggests one possible fix for this:

We can’t easily eliminate the risk of bogus state and local investigations due to substitute FOSTA, but we can blunt the 5+ language. Something like “promotes or facilitates the prostitution of 5 or more persons HIMSELF OR HERSELF (NOT CONSIDERING THE ACTS OR CONTENT OF ANY THIRD PARTIES).” This change would not treat third party promotions as part of the enhancement, and it would take some wind out of the sails of overeager prosecutors who can find many more than 5+ ads on a site.

But, that won't totally eliminate bogus fishing expeditions.

Another problem with the bill is some convoluted language in which Congress wants to say that this isn't really changing CDA 230, but it can be read in the exact opposite way. Here's the language:

Consistent with section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230), a defendant may be held liable, under this subsection, where promotion or facilitation of prostitution activity includes responsibility for the creation or development of all or part of the information or content provided through any interactive computer service.

As Goldman notes, you can read this to say that "if an online service is responsible for ANY content on its site, it is responsible for ALL content, including all third party content," even though that's almost certainly not what is meant. Instead, it appears to be Congress (needlessly) reconfirming the state of CDA 230, which many of us have pointed out in response to critics: that it already allows prosecution when the service provider is the developer of the content itself (rather than just a third party host). This paragraph is unnecessary, as that's what the law already says, and by adding this new, convoluted language that can be read in the exact opposite way... it's only going to lead to a bunch of lawsuits around this provision and the (horrifying) possibility of a court reading it to change CDA 230.

Overall, I tend to agree with Goldman that it's still unclear why this bill is necessary, other than political grandstanding.

I continue to believe that Congress does not need to pass any bill: the SAVE Act did the work Congress wanted it to do; the Rentboy and MyRedbook prosecutions show the DOJ has effective legal tools (recall that both involved a prosecution for online prostitution, not sex trafficking, so they cover very similar ground to substitute FOSTA); Congress has other anti-sex trafficking initiatives in queue that may be more helpful; and it’s not empirically clear that efforts to extinguish online prostitution ads will protect victims. So here’s how I’d rank my priorities:

1) best outcome: no legislative changes

2) second-best outcome (a distant second): substitute FOSTA due to the intent scienter, national legal standard and tight linkage between civil and state law enforcement claims and the federal crime

3) third-best outcome (substantially behind substitute FOSTA): SESTA as amended, which fixed some of SESTA’s roughest edges but still retained its core imposition of the moderator’s dilemma

4) fourth-best outcome: FOSTA as introduced. That version is probably already defunct. At least, I hope so.

I might take this a step further. These bills really seem misguided, and seem much more designed for political grandstanding and the ability for their sponsors to claim they "did something" on a hotbutton topic. But, as noted, while sex trafficking is a real problem, it's a much smaller one than politicians claim. And, all of these bills will actually make it more difficult for law enforcement to track down and arrest the real criminals. That, again, seems misguided. Targeting intermediaries and tools, rather than the sex traffickers themselves, has always seemed like a backwards approach. I'm all for law enforcement seeking out and arresting sex traffickers. But these bills still seem to focus on criminalizing third parties, rather than the actual traffickers, and in doing so, make sure that the actual trafficking activity is more difficult for law enforcement to track down. That's even more true when you conflate prostitution with sex trafficking. So, while the manager's amendment on FOSTA is clearly a "better" solution, it's still a probably unnecessary and counterproductive one.

Filed Under: cda 230, congress, fosta, intermediary liability, prostitution, sesta, sex trafficking