Ever since social activity on the Internet began migrating from the wilds of the open web to the walled gardens erected by so-called platforms, debates have raged about the responsibilities that these platforms ought to bear. And yet, despite intense scrutiny from the news media and grassroots movements of outraged users, platforms continue to operate, from a legal standpoint, on the friendliest terms. Under the current regulatory framework, platforms simultaneously benefit from: (1) broad discretion to organize (and censor) content however they choose; (2) powerful algorithms for curating a practically limitless supply of user-posted microcontent according to whatever ends they wish; and (3) absolution from the sorts of liability born by creators of the underlying content. In this paper, we contest the very validity of the platform-creator distinction, arguing that it is ill-adapted to the modern social media landscape where, in a real sense, platforms are creating derivative media products. We argue that any coherent regulatory framework must adapt to this reality, recognizing the subtle continuum of activities that span the curation-creation spectrum, providing a finer system of categorization and clearer guidance for precisely when platforms assume the responsibilities associated with content creation.
翻译:自从互联网上的社会活动开始从开放网络的荒野向所谓的平台建立的围墙花园迁移以来,关于这些平台应该承担的责任的辩论已经激烈地展开。然而,尽管新闻媒体和愤怒用户的基层运动从法律角度对平台进行了严密的审查,但从最友好的术语来看,平台继续以法律角度运作。根据目前的监管框架,平台同时受益于:(1) 组织(和审查)内容的广泛酌处权,无论它们选择何种内容;(2) 帮助几乎无限制地供应用户所投放的微功能的强大算法,无论它们希望达到什么目的;(3) 免除基础内容创作者所应承担的责任。 在本文中,我们质疑平台-创建者区别的非常正确性,认为平台与现代社会媒体环境不适应,在现实意义上,平台正在创造衍生媒体产品。我们主张,任何连贯的监管框架都必须适应这一现实,同时认识到跨越整理范围的活动的微妙连续性,为平台承担与内容创建相关责任时提供精确的精细的分类和更加明确的指导。