Artificial intelligence liability: the rules are changing
By Ryan E. Long on March 17, 2023 at 5:48 pm
Whether and when communications platforms like Google, Twitter and Facebook are liable for their users’ online activities is one of the key factors that affects innovation and free speech. Most creative expression today takes place over communications networks owned by private companies. Governments around the world increasingly press intermediaries to block their users’ undesirable online content in order to suppress dissent, hate speech, privacy violations and the like. One form of pressure is to make communications intermediaries legally responsible for what their users do and say. Liability regimes that put platform companies at legal risk for users’ online activity are a form of censorship-by-proxy, and thereby imperil both free expression and innovation, even as governments seek to resolve very real policy problems.
In the United States, the core doctrines of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have allowed these online intermediary platforms user generated content to flourish. But, immunities and safe harbors for intermediaries are under threat in the U.S. and globally as governments seek to deputize intermediaries to assist in law enforcement.
To contribute to this important policy debate, CIS studies international approaches to intermediary obligations concerning users’ copyright infringement, defamation, hate speech or other vicarious liabilities, immunities, or safe harbors; publishes a repository of information on international liability regimes and works with global platforms and free expression groups to advocate for policies that will protect innovation, freedom of expression, privacy and other user rights.
By Ryan E. Long on March 17, 2023 at 5:48 pm
By Daphne Keller on April 6, 2022 at 6:00 am
This post is about what I consider one of the hardest questions, particularly under laws that create special data-access regimes for researchers. What data are platforms supposed to share, and what personal information will it disclose about Internet users? This question pits privacy goals against data-access and research goals. A strongly pro-privacy answer will curtail research into questions of great public importance. A strongly pro-research answer will limit users’ privacy rights. In between lie a lot of difficult calls and complex trade-offs. Read more about User Privacy vs. Platform Transparency: The Conflicts Are Real and We Need to Talk About Them
By Riana Pfefferkorn on March 9, 2022 at 7:27 pm
This is the latest entry in my lengthy archive of writing, talks, and interviews about the EARN IT Act: Read more about Ignoring EARN IT’s Fourth Amendment Problem Won’t Make It Go Away
By Riana Pfefferkorn on February 4, 2022 at 1:23 pm
This is the latest entry in my lengthy archive of writing, talks, and interviews about the EARN IT Act: Read more about The EARN IT Act Is Back, and It’s More Dangerous Than Ever