The rules on illegal content are clear: if it\u2019s illegal in the real\nworld then it\u2019s illegal online. Platforms and regulators have seldom sparred\nover this; the community guidelines enforced by most platforms are\nstraight-forward. Content suspected of being illegal can be flagged for\ninspection \u2013 or blocked at upload \u2013 and should be removed as quickly as\npossible if it turns out to be unlawful. This zero-tolerance rule applies to\nmany types of illegal material, but it applies first and foremost to child pornography\nand images of children being abused. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Many platforms have invested heavily in artificial-intelligence to help\nthem spot and block illegal content before it even goes up \u2013 so much so that\nsome images, like the iconic picture of a naked Vietnamese child running to\nescape an American napalm attack, have been incorrectly flagged and temporarily\nbarred (a subsequent human review saw the content restored and the algorithms\ntweaked). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The questions become trickier when legal liability is brought into the\npicture. In 1996, the United States set the rules that would become the\nstandard; according to section 230 of the\ncommunications decency act<\/a>, platforms would be expected to \u201cuse good faith\u201d to\nrestrict access to content that was \u201cobscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy,\nexcessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable\u201d and would enjoy\nlegal immunity from prosecution over content that users posted (including\nprosecution for removing user-posted content that fell foul of the platform\u2019s\ncommunity guidelines). In Europe, article 14 of the electronic commerce\ndirective<\/a> (2000) did the same; it said\nplatforms were not liable for content posted on their site if they had no prior\nknowledge of the illegal nature and if the platform acted expeditiously to\nremove it once notified. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The disturbing thing is the amount of child-abuse material available\nonline is rising. The volume of content hosted on websites containing sexually\nabusive material has increased a staggering 70% since 2017, according to an Internet Watch\nFoundation report<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n To be clear, the platforms themselves are not guilty of this rise; much of the material appears on stand-alone websites. Shockingly, 90% of those websites originate in Europe. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n No one supports the use of the Internet to aid and abet crimes against\nchildren. But the question of whether the rules are tough enough \u2013 and whether\nplatforms are doing enough \u2013 is in clear dispute. But so is the flip side of\nthe argument: platforms use filters to flag and remove content; have these\nbecome too sensitive? Is the law inching towards censorship and surveillance?\nDo lawmakers need stronger tools for tracking criminal activity online? Or is\nthere an emerging threat to privacy slipping in under the banner of stopping\ncrimes we all know and feel to be horrific? <\/p>\n\n\n\n And perhaps more pointedly, is the horrendous fact of the continued\nexistence and spread of online child pornography \u2013 and the evident need to\nrespond with strengthened measures \u2013 being used as a convenient screen for\ncompelling platforms to allow political parties \u2013 some led by powerful\npoliticians \u2013 to spread lies without being challenged?<\/p>\n\n\n\n In May 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a formal\n\u201creview\u201d of the section 230 exemption<\/a>, charging the platforms with\npolitical bias after one platform posted a link to correct information next to\na tweet containing proven and provable lies. Earlier, U.S. Senator Lindsey\nGraham, a South Carolina Republican, introduced a sweeping bill on Eliminating\nAbusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act<\/a> that would allow\nthe platform liability exemption to be lifted in certain cases. Under the\nproposed rules, a 19-person committee would elaborate a code-of-conduct on\ncontent-removal (which the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Congress would\nratify and amend); companies that failed to meet the tough standard could see\ntheir legal immunity from prosecution lifted, opening the door to lawsuits from\naggrieved parties who felt that harm had been generated or their rights abused\nby material circulated on the platforms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Law enforcement officials \u2013 including U.S. Senators sponsoring the bill\n\u2013 say the platforms still don\u2019t do enough to stop illegal content from\nspreading; with the support of several Democratic Senators, they seem to be\ncarving out a middle ground where platforms could keep much of their legal\nimmunity but where, crucially, guidelines approved by the U.S. Attorney General\n(currently a controversial Republican) could be used to lift or suspend it in\nsome cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Privacy advocates see additional threats; they say the law could be used\nto force companies to open backdoors on end-to-end encryption, an increasingly\npopular way of communicating and exchanging information. Or it might possibly\nlead to pre-emptive curbs on the use of end-to-end encryption itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The European Commission has\nalso promised new rules \u201cfor a more effective fight against child sexual abuse\u201d\nlater this year, according to the 2020 work programme put forward by President Ursula\nvon der Leyen.<\/a> And the U.S. law\u2019s\nfinal contour isn\u2019t known. To be sure, class action suits are how the U.S. established high\nproduct safety standards<\/a> in areas as\ndiverse as automobiles, children\u2019s toys, lawnmowers and airplanes. But the risk\nis the power the proposed law would give political figures to lift immunity and\nallow lawsuits against platforms which challenge their authority on the most\nbasic points of truth and evidence. Recent history has shown that U.S.\nadministrations \u2013 and this one in particular \u2013 are not always impartial and\ndon\u2019t shy away from using the tools of state for political ends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Which leaves the horrific problem of child\nabuse online. Whatever the modalities, regulators should set aside their\npotentially harmful games and work with industry and privacy advocates to curb\nthis scourge that no one wants and everyone would like to see end. Its rise is\na shame and a disgrace that should concern us all. But attitude and scorn are\nnot sufficient tools for fighting it. And political witch hunts will be very\ndistracting and even less effective. The best response would be to take the\nissue seriously, craft joint responses and tackle the problem collectively.\nThat\u2019s what voters want. That\u2019s what society needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n PAUL HOFHEINZ The rules on illegal content are clear: if it\u2019s illegal in the real world then it\u2019s illegal online. Platforms and regulators have seldom sparred over this; the community guidelines enforced by most platforms are straight-forward. Content suspected of being illegal can be flagged for inspection \u2013 or blocked at upload \u2013 and should be removed … <\/p>\n
Paul Hofheinz is president and co-founder of the Lisbon Council. <\/p>\n\n\n\n