Fake News PL: How other countries deal with crimes on social networks

[ad_1]

The European Union, for example, recently created a series of unprecedented obligations for platforms, such as exposing algorithms to regulators. The Fake News PL creates rules to criminalize the dissemination of false content and hold networks accountable for irregularities committed in their virtual environments. The proposal requires compensation for damage caused to users of social networks in specific cases: when damage is caused by content generated by third parties, whose distribution has been carried out through platform advertising; damages arising from content generated by third parties, when there is non-compliance with the obligations of companies to proactively identify crimes committed. The Fake News PL still obliges platforms to constantly identify, analyze and account for the risks that their algorithms and services can generate. Within these possible risks, the main issues that companies must monitor are: dissemination of criminal content; freedom of expression, information and press; violence against women, racism, protection of public health; Democratic rule of law and the electoral process. See below how legislation in other countries deals with crimes on social media. European Union Digital Services Act (2022): rules for companies with internet services, in particular platforms with more than 45 million users in Europe. Companies are obliged to act against the dissemination of illegal content, products or services; In April 2023, new regulation created unprecedented obligations for giant platforms, which will need, among other things, to account for algorithms to regulators and “redesign their systems” to guarantee privacy, security and protection of minors by the end of August 2023; European Commission monitors large platforms directly and can impose fines of up to 6% of companies’ global turnover. Germany NetzDG (German for “Network Enforcement Law”) (2017): Networks with more than 2 million users must provide means for users to report posts and take down “clearly illegal” content within 24 hours of being notified; Purpose is to prevent platforms from being used to spread false information subject to punishment in court and other illegal content, such as defamation, disclosure of scenes of violence and public incitement to crime; In cases where it is possible to immediately identify that content is illegal, the networks have up to seven days to take down or block the posting; Platforms that do not comply with determinations are subject to fines of up to 50 million euros (about R$ 275 million). United States Section 230 (1996): providers, such as social networks, are not publishers or authors of information published by third parties, and have legal protection to remove content involving piracy and pornography, for example; Platforms are not responsible for acting in good faith to restrict access to material deemed obscene, excessively violent or otherwise objectionable; Supreme Court analyzes whether platforms can be held responsible for recommending content through their algorithms. Australia Online Security Act (2021): Makes platforms more accountable for protecting users and requires companies to create codes to regulate illegal and restricted content, such as those that include scenes of child abuse or acts of terrorism REVIEW: Fantástico report on excerpts from the Fake News Bill Exclusive: see excerpts from the text that must be presented on the regulation of networks ALSO READ: See the main points of the report on the project to combat fake news filed in the Chamber See which countries are discussing whether ‘big techs’ should pay for news displayed in your feed What the platforms say about the PL In a note, Meta, owner of Facebook, claims that the bill creates a “confusing” and “unsustainable” environment, which may, for example, oblige the platform to pay for content made by malicious people who get journalists to publish false information. “The proposed law also does not define what is ‘journalistic content’. This could lead to an increase in misinformation, not the other way around,” the company said in a statement. And in an open letter, Google said that it works daily to address these issues, but that the bill may pose risks to user safety, and deserves more space for discussion and debate. Last month, a group of associations representing journalism companies released a manifesto in which they defended the Fake News PL. According to the companies, the project is necessary “in view of the dramatic effects of misinformation and hate speech” on society. He also stated that the appreciation of professional journalism serves as “an antidote to this social epidemic”. “As already occurs in other countries, the remuneration of journalistic activity by technology platforms can be a decisive element for the formation of a broad, diverse and healthy journalistic ecosystem, capable of opposing the spread of disinformation and hate speech”, say the companies in the manifest.

[ad_2]

Source link