Internet intermediaries must be held accountable for content

Two developments, on March 26, in two corners of the world, could finally force technology giants which reap the benefits of being media companies but do not want to handle the responsibilities that come with being one, to change their ways

Two developments, on March 26, in two corners of the world, could finally force technology giants which reap the benefits of being media companies but do not want to handle the responsibilities that come with being one, to change their ways. The first is in Australia, which has warned companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google, that they need to prevent their platforms from being “weaponised” by extremists and terrorists. The country’s move comes as a response to the New Zealand terror attack. Ahead of a meeting between the government and the companies, AFP reported that Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrisson spoke about the speed of response of such companies when it came to commercial matters — “They can get an ad to you in half a second” — and that “they should be able to pull down this sort of terrorist material and other types of very dangerous material in the same sort of time frame.”

Technology companies have so far been protected as intermediaries. Their liability is limited, and they have got away with such interventions as taking down copyrighted or offensive content when this is pointed out, or when asked to by a court (INFOPHOTO)

As the report pointed out, while Facebook said it removed the livestream of the New Zealand terror attack quickly, the fact is that the video was still available online well after the attack. The second development was in Europe where the European Parliament said technology platforms will have to check the content being posted online by their users for copyright violation. The rule is part of copyright reforms that have generated a lot of debate with opponents (including technology giants that lobbied heavily against them) claiming that this marks the end of “Internet freedom”. For the record, content publishers have supported the changes, motivated by two reasons: maintaining standards in journalism; and protecting their earnings, which have been eroded. In both cases, technology companies have so far been protected as intermediaries. Their liability is limited, and they have got away with such interventions as taking down copyrighted or offensive content when this is pointed out, or when asked to by a court. These are not the kind of safe harbours media companies enjoy, even in countries with absolute freedom of speech and expression protections. Technology companies have an interest in portraying themselves as mere intermediaries — when they start aggressively monitoring and moderating content, they stop being intermediaries, and lose the protection granted them. Not surprisingly, Australia’s Attorney General was quoted by AFP as saying after the meeting that their response was “thoroughly underwhelming”.