520
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 5
PLATFORM LIABILITY FOR ONLINE USER GENERATED ILLEGAL CONTENT
Nurmatov Bunyod
Tashkent State University of Law.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15399378
Abstract. This scientific article examines the challenges and legal perspectives
surrounding platform liability for illegal user-generated content. With the rise of online
platforms as intermediaries for user expression, concerns have emerged regarding the
responsibility of platforms in addressing harmful and illegal content. The article explores the
legal frameworks and approaches employed by various jurisdictions to hold platforms
accountable for such content. It discusses the tension between protecting freedom of expression
and ensuring the safety and integrity of online spaces. The article analyses landmark court cases
and legislative developments, highlighting the evolving standards for platform liability. The
complexities of determining platform liability, including issues of jurisdiction, content
moderation, and the role of automated systems, are explored. Additionally, the article explores
potential solutions and policy considerations for striking an appropriate balance between
platform liability and user expression. By examining the legal landscape and offering insights
into the challenges and potential solutions, this article contributes to the ongoing discourse on
platform liability and its implications for the digital environment.
Key words: liability, user, content, balance, expression, moderation, freedom
I.
Introduction
The internet and online platforms have changed how people communicate and share
information. User-generated content, which is content created and shared by individuals, has
become very popular. However, some of this user-generated content is illegal and raises
concerns about who is responsible for it and how to prevent it.
Illegal user-generated content includes things like hate speech, terrorist propaganda, child
exploitation, and fraud.[1] Online platforms face challenges in detecting and removing this
content because there is so much of it and it comes in many different forms. The Internet's
decentralized nature makes it even harder for platform operators to keep the platforms legal and
safe.
The issue of who is responsible for illegal user-generated content has attracted attention
from policy-makers, legal experts, and society as a whole [2]. The main question is what
responsibilities online platforms have in stopping this content from spreading. Finding a balance
between freedom of expression and protecting people from harm is a complex challenge that
requires careful analysis, collaboration, and new ideas.
This scientific article examines how online platforms handle illegal user-generated
content and suggests ways to address the challenges they face. The study looks at the laws and
regulations related to platform liability in different places, presents case studies to show the
challenges platforms face, and discusses the effectiveness of current methods for dealing with
illegal content.
The article also considers the legal and ethical aspects of platform liability, focusing on
the balance between free expression and preventing harm. It suggests possible solutions, such as
using new technology, working together with platforms and others involved, and educating users.
The article concludes with policy recommendations to guide future actions and promote
responsible platform practices.
By exploring the challenges and proposing solutions, this scientific article aims to
contribute to creating a safer online environment. The goal is to find ways for platforms to fulfil
their responsibilities while encouraging innovation and protecting free expression.
II.
Methodology:
521
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 5
To examine the current approaches to platform liability for user-generated illegal content
and explore potential solutions, this study employed a multi-faceted methodology. The following
methods were utilized:
1. Legal Framework Analysis: An extensive review of existing laws and regulations
pertaining to platform liability was conducted. This involved analysing legal documents, statutes,
and relevant case precedents in different jurisdictions to understand the legal obligations and
responsibilities of online platforms.
2. Case Studies: Several case studies were examined to gain insights into the challenges
faced by online platforms in dealing with user-generated illegal content. These case studies
included real-world examples of platforms encountering and addressing issues related to hate
speech, terrorist propaganda, intellectual property infringement, and fraudulent activities.
3. Content Moderation System Evaluation: The effectiveness of current content
moderation systems was assessed through a comprehensive evaluation. This involved analysing
the capabilities, limitations, and performance of existing technological tools and algorithms
employed by platforms to detect and remove illegal content. The evaluation considered factors
such as accuracy, speed, scalability, and the ability to adapt to evolving forms of illegal content.
4. Expert Interviews: Interviews were conducted with legal experts, policy-makers,
platform operators, and other relevant stakeholders to gather diverse perspectives on platform
liability and potential mitigation strategies. These interviews provided valuable insights into the
challenges faced by platforms and helped identify innovative solutions and best practices.
The combination of these methods allowed for a comprehensive analysis of the current
landscape of platform liability for user-generated illegal content. It provided a holistic
understanding of the legal, technological, and ethical dimensions involved, leading to the
formulation of potential solutions and policy recommendations.
III.
Results:
The study examined different aspects of platform liability for user-generated illegal
content and found the following key results:
1.
Legal Framework: Laws and regulations regarding platform liability varied across
different regions. Some places had clear rules for platforms to moderate and remove illegal
content, while others had a more lenient approach. For example, in US, section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act (CDA) is a federal law in the United States that provides certain
legal protections for on-line platforms and intermediaries regarding user-generated content [3].
The text of Section 230 itself consists of two subsections, commonly referred to as
Section 230(c)(1) and Section 230(c)(2). Here's a summary of what is written in each subsection:
Section 230(c)(1): This subsection states that online platforms, such as social media
websites, cannot be treated as the publisher or speaker of content posted by their users. In other
words, platforms are not held legally responsible for the content created or posted by their users.
This protection allows platforms to moderate and remove content without facing
excessive liability for the actions of their users.
Section 230(c)(2): This subsection provides immunity to platforms for actions they take
in good faith to moderate or restrict access to certain types of content. It states that platforms are
not liable for any action they take to voluntarily restrict access to material that they consider to
be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable,
whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.
These provisions of Section 230(c) have been interpreted by courts to provide broad legal
protections to online platforms, shielding them from liability for user-generated content and
enabling them to engage in content moderation without fear of facing excessive legal
consequences.
It's important to note that while Section 230 provides these protections, it does not grant
absolute immunity to online platforms. There are exceptions to Section 230, such as cases
involving federal criminal law, intellectual property violations, or enforcement of certain civil
rights laws.
522
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 5
2.
Case Studies: Real-life examples showed that online platforms face significant
challenges in dealing with user-generated illegal content. Instances of hate speech, terrorist
propaganda, intellectual property infringement, and fraud highlighted the diverse and complex
nature of the content platforms have to handle. There are several cases such as:
A. Zeran v. America Online (1997) [4]: This case involved an individual named Kenneth
Zeran who sued America Online (AOL) for failing to remove defamatory posts about him on
their platform. The court ruled that AOL was not liable for the defamatory content posted by its
users, citing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This case set an early precedent
for the broad immunity granted to platforms under Section 230.
B. Prager University v. You Tube: Prager University [5], a conservative media
organization, filed a lawsuit against You Tube in 2017, alleging that the platform's restrictions
and demonetization of their videos violated their First Amendment rights to free speech. PragerU
argued that You Tube's content moderation practices were politically biased and unfairly
targeted conservative voices. The case raised questions about whether private platforms have an
obligation to uphold free speech rights and the extent to which they can moderate content.
These cases illustrate the complexity and diversity of legal challenges surrounding
platform liability for user-generated content. They demonstrate the varying interpretations and
applications of laws such as Section 230 in different contexts and highlight the ongoing legal
debates in this area.
3.
Content Moderation Systems: Existing content moderation tools have made progress in
automatically detecting and removing illegal content. However, there are still limitations. The
systems struggle to accurately identify nuanced forms of illegal content and keep up with
emerging trends. Here are a few content moderation systems I found:
A.
Automated Filtering: Platforms often employ automated filtering systems that use
algorithms and machine learning to detect and filter out certain types of content. These systems
can scan text, images, and videos for specific keywords, patterns, or characteristics that may
indicate violations of the platform's content policies. Examples of automated filtering systems
include Google's Content ID for copyright infringement detection on You Tube and Facebook's
automated systems for detecting hate speech.
B. Human Moderation: Human moderation involves employing teams of content
moderators who manually review and assess user-generated content for policy violations. These
moderators review reported content, proactively scan the platform for potential violations, and
make decisions on whether to remove or take action against specific content. Companies like
Accenture, Cognizant, and TaskUs provide outsourced content moderation services to various
platforms.
C. Community Flagging and Voting: Some platforms employ community-based
moderation systems where users can flag or downvote content they deem inappropriate or rule-
breaking. Platforms like Reddit use community flagging and voting mechanisms to surface and
bring attention to problematic content, which can then be reviewed by moderators or
automatically hidden based on community consensus.
D. Pre-Moderation and Post-Moderation: Pre-moderation refers to the practice of
reviewing and approving user-generated content before it is published on the platform. Platforms
like discussion forums or comment sections of news websites often employ pre-moderation to
control the content that appears. Post-moderation, on the other hand, involves reviewing and
taking action on user-generated content after it has been published. Social media platforms
commonly use post-moderation, where content can be reported and reviewed after it has been
shared.
These examples represent different approaches to content moderation, and platforms
often employ a combination of these systems to maintain a safe and compliant environment for
their users.
4.
Expert Perspectives: Insights from interviews with experts highlighted the need for
collaboration among platforms, policy-makers, and other stakeholders:
523
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 5
A. Tarleton Gillespie, Professor of Communication at Cornell University: Gillespie
explores the complex relationship between platforms, content moderation, and free speech. He
argues that content moderation decisions are not solely technical or objective but involve
subjective judgements that can shape public discourse and influence the boundaries of acceptable
speech. [6]
B. Jillian York, Director for International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF): York advocates for the rights of internet users and highlights the
potential risks of over-reliance on automated content moderation systems. She raises concerns
about the lack of transparency, potential bias, and unintended consequences that can arise from
algorithmic decision-making in content moderation.
These expert perspectives offer diverse insights into the challenges, ethical considerations,
and policy implications of content moderation. They contribute to the ongoing discussions and
debates surrounding the role and responsibility of platforms in governing user-generated content
while upholding principles such as free speech, user privacy, and human rights.
These results show that platform liability for user-generated illegal content is a complex
issue. Collaboration, technological advancements, and policy interventions are necessary to
effectively address these challenges and create a safer on-line environment.
IV.
Discussion:
It is clear that platform liability for illegal user generated content is a complex issue.
The main law to regulate it in the US is Communications Decency Act. According to this
law, platforms are not legally responsible for the content posted by their users except for federal
criminal law, intellectual property violations, or enforcement of certain civil rights law. [7] Take
Zeran v. America online case as an example. Kenneth Zeran sued America Online for failing to
remove defamatory posts about him on 1their platform. The court ruled that AOL was not liable
for the defamatory content by its users, citing section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
This shows broad immunity granted to platforms under Section 230. Besides that this
protection allows platforms to moderate and remove certain types of content in good faith. It
means platforms can voluntarily restrict access to material they consider to be obscene, lewd,
excessively violent, harassing. These moderations are done by several moderation systems. One
of the best example is this is automated filtering. Platforms often employ it to detect and filter
out certain types of content using algorithms. Examples of automated systems include Google`s
Content ID for copyright infringement detection on You Tube and Facebook`s automated
systems for detecting hate speech. However we have to consider principles of free expression as
well. According to Tarleton Gillespie, Professor of communication at Cornell University, content
moderation decisions are not solely technical or objective but involve subjective judgements that
can shape public discourse and influence the boundaries of acceptable speech. Similarly, Jillian
York, Director for International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation
(EFF) advocates for the rights of internet users and highlights the potential risks of over reliance
on automated content moderation systems. One example is Prager University v. You Tube:
Prager University, a conservative media organization, filed a lawsuit against You Tube in 2017,
alleging that the platform's restrictions and demonetization of their videos violated their First
Amendment rights to free speech. PragerU argued that You Tube's content moderation practices
were politically biased and unfairly targeted conservative voices. The case raised questions about
whether private platforms have an obligation to uphold free speech rights and the extent to which
they can moderate content. Based on my researches I found some solutions to create a safer
online environment while upholding the principles of free expression and fostering innovation.
1. Section 230 Reform [8]: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the
United States provides platforms with broad immunity from liability for third-party content.
Some argue for a reform of Section 230 to modify the scope of immunity and establish
clearer standards for platform responsibility [9]. This could incentive platforms to take a more
proactive role in moderating harmful content while still preserving free expression.
524
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 5
2. Balanced Content Moderation Policies: Platforms can strive to develop and enforce
content moderation policies that strike a balance between freedom of expression and safety.
Clear guidelines regarding prohibited content, hate speech, harassment, and
misinformation can help provide clarity for users and content moderators. Transparency in
content moderation processes and involving external experts for policy development can enhance
accountability and legitimacy.
3. Improved Moderation Tools and AI Systems: Platforms can invest in developing and
deploying more sophisticated content moderation tools and artificial intelligence systems. These
technologies can help identify and flag harmful content more accurately and efficiently, reducing
the burden on human moderators. Continual improvement and refining of moderation algorithms
can contribute to more effective content filtering while minimizing false positives and
unintended censorship.
4. User Empowerment and Reporting Mechanisms: Platforms can provide users with
robust reporting mechanisms to flag and report abusive or harmful content. Empowering users to
report violations and providing transparent feedback on the handling of reports can enhance user
trust and participation in maintaining safe online environments. Platforms can also invest in user
education and awareness programs to promote responsible online behaviour.
5.
Collaborative Industry Standards: Collaboration among online platforms, industry
associations, and relevant stakeholders can help establish industry-wide standards for content
moderation [10]. Sharing best practices, guidelines, and insights can contribute to more
consistent approaches across platforms, reducing the risk of arbitrary or inconsistent content
removal decisions.
6.
Legal Oversight and Accountability: Governments can play a role in establishing
appropriate legal frameworks and oversight mechanisms to address online platform liability.
This can include legislation that outlines the responsibilities and obligations of platforms
in moderating content while safeguarding free expression. However, careful consideration must
be given to avoid undue censorship and to ensure that regulatory measures do not stifle
innovation or disproportionately burden smaller platforms.
Conclusion:
Online platforms are not liable for illegal user generated content, the real example of this
is Zeran v. America Online case. Besides that platforms can moderate and remove certain types
of content in good faith according to 230
th
section of Communication Decency Act. It is done by
certain certain moderation systems such as automated filtering. However there are some
concerns about freedom of expression. In order to strike the right balance between safety and
freedom, we can take several actions such as Section 230 reform, balanced content moderation
policies, improved moderation tools and AI systems, user empowerment and reporting
mechanisms, collaborative industry standards, legal oversight and accountability.
REFERENCES
1.
Pinto, T., Shan, N., Freytag, S., & von Braunschweig, E. (2010). Liability of Online
Publishers for User Generated Content: A European Perspective.
Comm. Law.
,
27
, 5.
2.
Andrade, P. L. (2009). Who's Liable for User-Generated Content?.
Americas Quarterly
,
3
(1),
71-75.
3.
Ehrlich, P. (2002). Communications Decency Act § 230.
Berkeley Technology Law Journal
,
401-419.
4.
Zeran v. America Online, Inc.
, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).
5.
Prager University v. GOOGLE LLC
, 951 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2020).
6.
George, C. E., & Scerri, J. (2007). Web 2.0 and User-Generated Content: legal challenges in
the new frontier.
Journal of Information, Law and Technology
,
2
.
7.
Osborne, D. (2008). User generated content (UGC): trade mark and copyright infringement
issues.
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
,
3
(9), 555-562.
525
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 5
8.
Halim, R. (2023). Section 230 Reform: A Work in Progress.
U. Cent. Fla. Dep't Legal Stud.
LJ
,
6
, 193.
9.
Keller, D. (2018). Toward a clearer conversation about platform liability.
Knight First
Amendment Institute’s “Emerging Threats” essay series
.
10.
Cai, J., & Wohn, D. Y. (2022, April). Coordination and Collaboration: How do Volunteer
Moderators Work as a Team in Live Streaming Communities?. In
Proceedings of the 2022
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(pp. 1-14).
