RightsCon Toronto 2018

Policy choices for intermediary liability affect freedom of expression and access to knowledge online. Much of our communication online depends on private intermediaries, which enable their users to upload, store, and share information with others. The configuration of immunity laws for these intermediaries, safe harbors, and legal responsibilities for user-generated content has critical implications for both users’ ability to participate in online speech and to find information they seek.

Discussion around harmful content online often centers on social media and other platforms that host content on line. But increasing pressure to address harmful content on the web affects not only those who develop or moderate content, but also those who provide services deep inside the internet infrastructure. Because these services operate outside of the public eye, web users may not even be aware that these providers can make decisions that will affect their access to content.

This session will draw on Stanford’s World Intermediary Liability Map as a source of information about emerging trends, and on the Manila Principles as a framework for assessing their impact on human rights. Expert panelists from around the world will briefly identify recent legal developments and emerging themes or focus issues for policy advocacy and litigation. Panelists and audience members will then discuss strategies, arguments, and shared materials we can use to promote the public interest in sound Intermediary Liability laws.

This session is also intended to flesh out a possible framework for service providers to use to think through their level of responsibility with respect to content. Information about the practices and experiences of Wikipedia and Cloudflare will be given as examples of different approaches taken in different components of the internet stack. For example, the case of Wikipedia will shed light on how platforms can be allowed to empower users to self-govern instead of interfering in editorial decisions, whereas the case of Cloudflare will illustrate other relevant factors such as transparency to users, whether the service is the most targeted way to address the concern, and whether the service otherwise manipulates or monitors content.