Difference between revisions of "Online Content Regulation (Q3942)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created claim: comment (P126): Legal experts have cautioned that holding internet companies liable for the speech of their users could lead to the end of these services altogether. [...] Such liability would stifle innovation as well as individuals’ freedom of expression.) |
(Created claim: comment (P126): This model’s flaws appear all the more clear in light of the significant efforts many companies make to identify and remove harmful speech—efforts that often require the protective shield of intermediary liability protection laws.) |
||
| Property / comment | |||
| + | This model’s flaws appear all the more clear in light of the significant efforts many companies make to identify and remove harmful speech—efforts that often require the protective shield of intermediary liability protection laws. | ||
| Property / comment: This model’s flaws appear all the more clear in light of the significant efforts many companies make to identify and remove harmful speech—efforts that often require the protective shield of intermediary liability protection laws. / rank | |||
| + | Normal rank | ||
Revision as of 09:16, 18 February 2020
white paper published by Facebook on February 2020
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English |
Online Content Regulation
|
white paper published by Facebook on February 2020
|
Statements
Legal experts have cautioned that holding internet companies liable for the speech of their users could lead to the end of these services altogether. [...] Such liability would stifle innovation as well as individuals’ freedom of expression.
0 references
This model’s flaws appear all the more clear in light of the significant efforts many companies make to identify and remove harmful speech—efforts that often require the protective shield of intermediary liability protection laws.
0 references