DOCSLIB.ORG

Governance Innovation for a Connected World Protecting Free Expression, Diversity and Civic Engagement in the Global Digital Ecosystem

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Global Digital Policy Incubator Governance Innovation for a Connected World Protecting Free Expression, Diversity and Civic Engagement in the Global Digital Ecosystem SPECIAL REPORT 67 Erb Street West Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 6C2 www.cigionline.org @cigionline Governance Innovation for a Connected World Protecting Free Expression, Diversity and Civic Engagement in the Global Digital Ecosystem SPECIAL REPORT Edited by Eileen Donahoe and Fen Osler Hampson Global Digital Policy Incubator CIGI Masthead GDPi Masthead Executive GDPi Senior Leadership President Rohinton P. Medhora Executive Director Eileen Donahoe Deputy Director, International Intellectual Property Law and Innovation Bassem Awad Principal Investigator Larry Diamond Chief Financial Officer and Director of Operations Shelley Boettger Director of the Global Economy Program Robert Fay Research and Program Staff Director of the International Law Research Program Oonagh Fitzgerald Director of the Global Security & Politics Program Fen Osler Hampson Associate Director for Research Megan Metzger Director of Human Resources Laura Kacur Associate Director for Programs Jan Rydzak Deputy Director, International Environmental Law Silvia Maciunas Research Associate and Project Leader, Human Rights Roya Pakzad Deputy Director, International Economic Law Hugo Perezcano Díaz Program Associate Sarahi Zaldumbide Director, Evaluation and Partnerships Erica Shaw Managing Director and General Counsel Aaron Shull For media enquiries, please contact [email protected]. Director of Communications and Digital Media Spencer Tripp @stanford_GDPi Publications Publisher Carol Bonnett Senior Publications Editor Jennifer Goyder Publications Editor Susan Bubak Publications Editor Patricia Holmes Publications Editor Nicole Langlois Publications Editor Lynn Schellenberg Graphic Designer Melodie Wakefield For publications enquiries, please contact [email protected]. Communications For media enquiries, please contact [email protected]. @cigionline Copyright © 2018 by the Centre for International Governance Innovation The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Centre for International Governance Innovation or its Board of Directors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution — Non-commercial — No Derivatives License. To view this license, visit (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). For re-use or distribution, please include this copyright notice. Printed in Canada on paper containing 100% post-consumer fibre and certified by the Forest Stewardship Council® and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. Centre for International Governance Innovation and CIGI are registered trademarks. 67 Erb Street West Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 6C2 www.cigionline.org Contents vii Acronyms and Abbreviations 37 Private Sector Roles and Responsibilities: 1 Introduction Protecting Quality of Discourse, Diversity of Eileen Donahoe and Fen Osler Hampson Content and Civic Engagement on Digital Platforms and Social Media 5 Overview of the Challenges Posed by Rebecca MacKinnon and Roya Pakzad Internet Platforms: Who Should Address Them and How? 45 Multi-stakeholder Governance Innovations Bill Graham and Stephanie MacLellan to Protect Free Expression, Diversity and Civility Online 21 Protecting Free Expression, Access to Lawrence E. Strickling and Jonah Force Hill Diverse Information and Democratic Engagement Online: Conceptual and 53 About CIGI/ À propos du CIGI Practical Challenges 53 About GDPi Suzanne Nossel and Viktorya Vilk 29 Are Recent Governmental Initiatives to Combat Online Hate Speech, Extremism and Fraudulent News Consistent with the International Human Rights Law Regime? Evelyn Mary Aswad Acronyms and Abbreviations AfD Alternative for Germany ISP internet service provider API application program interface NetzDG German Network Enforcement Act CEO chief executive officer NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Administration CRTC Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ECHR European Convention on Human Rights OSCE Organization for Security and FCC Federal Communications Commission Co-operation in Europe FTC Federal Trade Commission RDR Ranking Digital Rights GCIG Global Commission on TCP/IP transmission control protocol/ Internet Governance internet protocol GDPi Global Digital Policy Incubator UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific GDPR General Data Protection Regulation and Cultural Organization GNI Global Network Initiative VPN virtual private network IANA Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights IETF Internet Engineering Task Force IGF Internet Governance Forum ISOC Internet Society v Introduction Eileen Donahoe and Fen Osler Hampson The emergence of a global digital ecosystem has been a It is easy to say that governments should step in to boon for global communication and the democratization control this space and prevent further harms, but part of the means of distributing information. The internet, of what helped the internet grow and thrive was its and the social media platforms and web applications lack of heavy regulation, which encouraged openness running on it, have been used to mobilize pro-democracy and innovation. However, the absence of oversight protests and give members of marginalized communities has allowed dysfunction to spread, as malign actors a chance to share their voices with the world. manipulate digital technology for their own ends without fear of the consequences. It has also allowed However, more recently, we have also seen this unprecedented power to be concentrated in the hands technology used to spread propaganda and of private technology companies, and these giants misinformation, interfere in election campaigns, to act as de facto regulators with little meaningful expose individuals to harassment and abuse, and stir accountability. up confusion, animosity and sometimes violence in societies. Even seemingly innocuous digital technologies, So, who should be in charge of reversing the troubling such as ranking algorithms on entertainment websites, developments in our global digital spaces? And what, can have the effect of stifling diversity by failing to if anything, can be done to let society keep reaping reliably promote content from underrepresented groups. the benefits of these technologies, while protecting it At times, it can seem as if technologies that were against the risks? intended to help people learn and communicate have been irreparably corrupted. 1 Governance Innovation for a Connected World: Protecting Free Expression, Diversity and Civic Engagement in the Global Digital Ecosystem These questions were at the root of an international is “an open, thorough and ongoing dialogue...among working meeting organized by the Global Digital governments, civil society, international organizations Policy Incubator (GDPi) at Stanford University and and companies to ascertain the nature/scope of the the Centre for International Governance Innovation underlying problems that governments are trying to (CIGI), in cooperation with the Department of address and to assess properly the range of potential Canadian Heritage. “Governance Innovation for solutions short of broad governmental speech bans a Connected World: Protecting Free Expression, enforced by private companies.” Diversity and Civic Engagement in the Global Digital Ecosystem” was held at Stanford in March 2018. It The private sector’s role in preserving a healthy brought together representatives from government, and diverse online environment is discussed by academia, technology companies and civil society Rebecca MacKinnon and Roya Pakzad in their essay, to discuss potential governance options to deal with “Private Sector Roles and Responsibilities: Protecting these complex global challenges. The participants Quality of Discourse, Diversity of Content and Civic discussed governance policies rooted in private sector, Engagement on Digital Platforms and Social Media.” government and multi-stakeholder approaches. MacKinnon and Pakzad note that the major tech companies have already taken steps to curb harmful The essays that comprise this special report helped speech and misinformation on their platforms, such inform the conversations that took place. as improving content moderation; using automation and machine learning to detect fake accounts and Suzanne Nossel and Viktorya Vilk of PEN America violent content; and partnering with independent delve further into the topic of freedom of expression fact-checkers. However, a number of gaps remain, in their essay, “Protecting Free Expression, Access to including insufficient information about the volume Diverse Information and Democratic Engagement and the nature of the content they remove for violating Online.” The very nature of the internet — which their terms of service; a lack of transparency around enables communications to move farther, faster and how they use and share information about their users; at greater volumes — has “profound implications for and inadequate grievance and remedy mechanisms for free expression and open discourse,” they write. It has people who feel their content was unfairly censored. opened the door to new forms of state surveillance and Addressing these gaps would be a good starting place censorship, while also giving
Recommended publications
  • A Contract Theory of Academic Freedom

    A Contract Theory of Academic Freedom

    Saint Louis University Law Journal Volume 59 Number 2 Current Issues in Education Law Article 8 (Winter 2015) 2015 A Contract Theory of Academic Freedom Philip Lee University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Philip Lee, A Contract Theory of Academic Freedom, 59 St. Louis U. L.J. (2015). Available at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj/vol59/iss2/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Saint Louis University Law Journal by an authorized editor of Scholarship Commons. For more information, please contact Susie Lee. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW A CONTRACT THEORY OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM1 PHILIP LEE* INTRODUCTION Academic freedom is central to the core role of professors in a free society. Yet, current First Amendment protections exist to protect academic institutions, not the academics themselves. For example, in Urofsky v. Gilmore, six professors employed by various public colleges and universities in Virginia challenged a law restricting state employees from accessing sexually explicit material on computers owned or leased by the state.2 The professors claimed, in part, that such a restriction was in violation of their First Amendment academic freedom rights to conduct scholarly research.3 The Fourth Circuit upheld the law and noted that “to the extent the Constitution recognizes any right of ‘academic freedom’ above and beyond the First Amendment rights to which every citizen is entitled, the right inheres in the University, not in individual professors, and is not violated by the terms of the Act.”4 In other words, this particular court held that academic freedom protects the institution as a whole, but not the individual professors.
  • Bolstering the UN Human Rights Council's Effectiveness

    Bolstering the UN Human Rights Council's Effectiveness

    DISCUSSION PAPER Bolstering the UN Human Rights Council’s Effectiveness Mark P. Lagon Ryan Kaminski January 2017 This publication is part of the International Institutions and Global Governance program and was made possible by the generous support of the Robina Foundation. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries. Founded in 1921, CFR carries out its mission by maintaining a diverse membership, with special programs to promote interest and develop expertise in the next generation of foreign policy leaders; convening meetings at its headquarters in New York and in Washington, DC, and other cities where senior government officials, members of Congress, global leaders, and promi- nent thinkers come together with CFR members to discuss and debate major international issues; sup- porting a Studies Program that fosters independent research, enabling CFR scholars to produce arti- cles, reports, and books and hold roundtables that analyze foreign policy issues and make concrete policy recommendations; publishing Foreign Affairs, the preeminent journal on international affairs and U.S. foreign policy; sponsoring Independent Task Forces that produce reports with both findings and policy prescriptions on the most important foreign policy topics; and providing up-to-date infor- mation and analysis about world events and American foreign policy on its website, CFR.org. The Council on Foreign Relations takes no institutional positions on policy issues and has no affiliation with the U.S.
  • University Hate Speech Codes. Alexander Tsesis Loyola University School of Law, Atsesis@Luc.Edu

    University Hate Speech Codes. Alexander Tsesis Loyola University School of Law, [email protected]

    Loyola University Chicago, School of Law LAW eCommons Faculty Publications & Other Works 2010 Burning Crosses on Campus: University Hate Speech Codes. Alexander Tsesis Loyola University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/facpubs Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Tsesis, Alexander, Burning Crosses on Campus: University Hate Speech Codes, 43 Connecticut Law Review 617 (2010). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 43 DECEMBER 2010 NUMBER 2 Article Burning Crosses on Campus: University Hate Speech Codes ALEXANDER TSESIS Debates about the value and constitutionality of hate speech regulations on college campuses have deeply divided academics for over a decade. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Virginia v. Black, recognizing a state's power to criminalize intentionally intimidating cross burning at long last provides the key to resolving this heated dispute. The opponents of hate speech codes argue that such regulation guts our concept offree speech. One prominent scholar claims that this censorship would nullify the First Amendment and have "totalitarian implications." Another constitutional expert, Erwin Chemerinsky, asserts that the "public university simply cannot prohibit the expression of hate, including antisemitism, without running afoul of [establishedFirst Amendment principles]." On the other end of the spectrum are authors who argue that hate speech attacks individuals' Fourteenth Amendment right to equality, which outweighs any cathartic desire to degrade people because of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and religion.
  • Free Expression on Campus: What College Students Think About First Amendment Issues

    Free Expression on Campus: What College Students Think About First Amendment Issues

    FREE EXPRESSION ON CAMPUS: WHAT COLLEGE STUDENTS THINK ABOUT FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES A GALLUP/KNIGHT FOUNDATION SURVEY WITH SUPPORT FROM: COPYRIGHT STANDARDS This document contains proprietary research and copyrighted and trademarked materials of Gallup, Inc. Accordingly, international and domestic laws and penalties guaranteeing patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret protection safeguard the ideas, concepts and recommendations related within this document. The materials contained in this document and/or the document itself may be downloaded and/or copied provided that all copies retain the copyright, trademark and any other proprietary notices contained in the materials and/or document. No changes may be made to this document without the express written permission of Gallup, Inc. Any reference whatsoever to this document, in whole or in part, on any web page must provide a link back to the original document in its entirety. Except as expressly provided herein, the transmission of this material shall not be construed to grant a license of any type under any patents, copyright or trademarks owned or controlled by Gallup, Inc. Copyright © 2018 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Gallup® is a trademark of Gallup, Inc. All other trademarks and copyrights are property of their respective owners. FREE EXPRESSION ON CAMPUS: WHAT COLLEGE STUDENTS THINK ABOUT FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction 3 Detailed Findings 3 College Students’ Views of First Amendment Rights 7 Tensions Between Free Expression and Inclusion 15 Campus Climate and Its Effect on Expression 21 Role of Social Media on Campus 26 Students’ Views of Actions to Limit Speech 34 Conclusion 35 Methodology 38 About Gallup 39 About the John S.
  • Innovations in Global Governance Peace-Building, Human Rights, Internet Governance and Cybersecurity, and Climate Change

    Innovations in Global Governance Peace-Building, Human Rights, Internet Governance and Cybersecurity, and Climate Change

    September 2017 Innovations in Global Governance Peace-Building, Human Rights, Internet Governance and Cybersecurity, and Climate Change Deborah Avant, Susanna P. Campbell, Eileen Donahoe, Karen Florini, Miles Kahler, Mark P. Lagon, Tim Maurer, Amol Mehra, Robert C. Orr, Jason Pielemeier, and Sarah Sewall The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries. Founded in 1921, CFR carries out its mission by maintaining a diverse membership, with special programs to promote interest and develop expertise in the next generation of foreign policy leaders; convening meetings at its headquarters in New York and in Washington, DC, and other cities where senior government officials, members of Congress, global leaders, and promi- nent thinkers come together with CFR members to discuss and debate major international issues; sup- porting a Studies Program that fosters independent research, enabling CFR scholars to produce arti- cles, reports, and books and hold roundtables that analyze foreign policy issues and make concrete policy recommendations; publishing Foreign Affairs, the preeminent journal on international affairs and U.S. foreign policy; sponsoring Independent Task Forces that produce reports with both findings and policy prescriptions on the most important foreign policy topics; and providing up-to-date infor- mation and analysis about world events and American foreign policy on its website, CFR.org.
  • The Regulation of Hate Speech by Academe Vs. the Idea of a University: a Classic Oxymoron?

    The Regulation of Hate Speech by Academe Vs. the Idea of a University: a Classic Oxymoron?

    St. John's Law Review Volume 67 Number 1 Volume 67, Winter 1993, Number 1 Article 1 The Regulation of Hate Speech by Academe vs. The Idea of a University: A Classic Oxymoron? Joseph W. Bellacosa Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW VOLUME 67 WINTER 1993 NUMBER 1 ARTICLES THE REGULATION OF HATE SPEECH BY ACADEME vs. THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY: A CLASSIC OXYMORON?* JOSEPH W. BELLACOSA** Legend has it that Willie Sutton, when asked why he robbed banks, answered, "Because that's where the money is!" One hopes that when people are asked, "Why do you go to college?", their response might be: "Because that's where the education is." Such an answer reflects the traditional idea of a university, embodying the seemingly self-evident proposition that it is the universe in which ideas are freely discussed and shared. However, clouds of doubt concerning this traditional idea have cast some shadows across the landscape of academe in the form of a recent phenome- non-the regulation of hate speech. By hate speech I refer here to the distribution and utterance on college campuses of bigoted, ra- cist, sexist, religious and similar shibboleths. The perceived threat of hate speech has propelled institutions of higher learning towards * This essay is adapted from a speech delivered by Hon.
  • Joan Shorenstein Center Comments from Former Fellows Shorenstein

    Joan Shorenstein Center Comments from Former Fellows Shorenstein

    Comments from Joan Shorenstein Center Shorenstein Center Former Fellows on the Press, Politics and Public Policy Fellowship Program “My semester as a Shorenstein Fellow was immeasurably rewarding— The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy is intellectually, professionally, and personally. Those four months were an a research center at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of induplicable gift.” Government. It was established in 1986 to promote a greater under- standing of the media by public officials, to improve coverage by Daniel Okrent, author, journalist, and consultant, Time Inc. Fellow, Spring 2006 media professionals of government and politics, to better anticipate the consequences of public policies that affect media and the First “Stimulating discussions, fascinating speakers, and colleagues who remain friends Amendment, and to increase knowledge about how the media affect to this day—all this comes to mind when I recall my time as a Fellow at the our political processes and governmental institutions. The Center Shorenstein Center.” includes a faculty of scholars and pracitioners who, through their research and teaching programs, are creating a body of knowledge Holli A. Semetko, Vice Provost for International Affairs and Professor of Political Science, Emory University Fellow, Spring 1994 about the press, politics and public policy in theory and in practice. “Four months at the Shorenstein Center gave me a chance to research an For information on how to apply for a Fellowship, issue that is close to my heart. It was an opportunity to go back to the days of please visit our website, the University and learn from the Center and Kennedy School faculty on a variety www.shorensteincenter.org of topics.
  • Uncomfortable, but Educational: Freedom of Expression in UK Universities Contents

    Uncomfortable, but Educational: Freedom of Expression in UK Universities Contents

    Uncomfortable, but educational: Freedom of expression in UK universities Contents 1. Executive Summary 4 2. Introduction 6 3. The road to legislation: a brief history 8 4. Legislation applicable to higher education institutions 9 5. Current concerns on UK campuses 12 6. Conclusion and recommendations 20 Appendix 1: Examples of best practice 21 Appendix 2: The legal landscape in the UK 22 This document was compiled with the support of Clifford Chance and Jonathan Price, Doughty Street Chambers. 2 Kanumbra / flickr Uncomfortable, but educational Uncomfortable, but educational Tom Parnell / flickr 3 Executive summary ree speech is vital to the free flow of thoughts and ideas. A freedom of expression organisation with an international remit, FNowhere is this perhaps more important than in universities, Index on Censorship seeks to highlight violations of freedom of which are crucibles for new thought and academic discovery, expression all over the world. Our approach to the principle of and whose remit is to encourage and foster critical thinking. freedom of expression is without political affiliation. In recent years, however, there has been a concerning rise in In Free Speech on Campus we look at the situation today on apparent attempts to shut down debates on certain subject areas UK campuses and in particular examine the existing legal and in universities in the UK and elsewhere. Speakers whose views other protections for free speech in universities. This comes in are deemed “offensive”, “harmful” or even “dangerous” have the wake of renewed government commitments to protect been barred from speaking at events, conferences on particular freedom of expression on campus.
  • Free Speech and Academic Freedom

    Free Speech and Academic Freedom

    Free Speech and Academic Freedom http://www.binghamton.edu/home/libraries/freespeech.html BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY The Report of the President's Commission on Free Speech and Academic Freedom Executive Summary May 1992 Table of Contents President's Commission Members A Message From the President Introduction I. Consultation with the Campus Community and Others II. Academic Freedom and the First Amendment A. Public V. Private Universities B. Student Academic Freedom C. State As Government V. State As Employer D. Academic Freedom and Institutional Autonomy III. Recommendations for University Policies IV. Traditions and Expectations Notes Bibliography President's Commission Laura Conte, Binghamton University Council, Commission Chair Richard Andrus, Associate Professor, Department of Geological Sciences and Environmental Studies and Program Director of Environmental Studies Linda Biemer, Dean, School of Education and Human Development Michael Boyd, Director, Educational Opportunity Program Jonathan Capp, Undergraduate Student Mary Colimon, Graduate Student 1 of 13 8/21/2007 4:41 PM Free Speech and Academic Freedom http://www.binghamton.edu/home/libraries/freespeech.html Richard Dalfiume, Deputy to the President and Associate Professor of History John Fillo, Chair, Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Watson School of Engineering and Applied Science David Garcia, Undergraduate Student (Spring and Summer, 1991) Patricia McPherson, Assistant Director, Campus Activities/Minority Studies Program Advisor Abisi Sharakiya, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy Norman Spear, Distinguished Professor of Psychology Nicholas Sterling, Associate Professor Mathematics and Master of Hinman College Ira Tolbert, Assistant Provost for Recruitment and Retention *A copy of the complete report is available from: Office of the President, Binghamton University, Binghamton, N.Y. 13902-6000 A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT In May 1992, The Commission on Free Speech and Academic Freedom at the State University of New York at Binghamton issued its final report to the University community.
  • Is There a Link Between Digital Media and Good Governance? What the Academics Say

    Is There a Link Between Digital Media and Good Governance? What the Academics Say

    Is There a Link Between Digital Media and Good Governance? What the Academics Say A Report to the Center for International Media Assistance By Mary Myers June 19, 2013 The Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA), at the National Endowment for Democracy, works to strengthen the support, raise the visibility, and improve the effectiveness of independent media development throughout the world. The Center provides information, builds networks, conducts research, and highlights the indispensable role independent media play in the creation and development of sustainable democracies. An important aspect of CIMA’s work is to research ways to attract additional U.S. private sector interest in and support for international media development. The Center was one of the of the main nongovernmental organizers of World Press Freedom Day 2011 in Washington, DC. CIMA convenes working groups, discussions, and panels on a variety of topics in the field of media development and assistance. The center also issues reports and recommendations based on working group discussions and other investigations. These reports aim to provide policymakers, as well as donors and practitioners, with ideas for bolstering the effectiveness of media assistance. Marguerite H. Sullivan Senior Director Center for International Media Assistance National Endowment for Democracy 1025 F Street, N.W., 8th Floor Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 378-9700 Fax: (202) 378-9407 Email: [email protected] URL: http://cima.ned.org Design and Layout by Valerie Popper About the Author Mary Myers is a freelance consultant, based in the United Kingdom. Her specialties are media in Africa, radio serving the poor, monitoring and evaluation, and gender issues.
  • Of Privatized Control Séverine Arsène

    Of Privatized Control Séverine Arsène

    The impact of China on global Internet governance in an era of privatized control Séverine Arsène To cite this version: Séverine Arsène. The impact of China on global Internet governance in an era of privatized control. Chinese Internet Research Conference, May 2012, Los Angeles, United States. hal-00704196v2 HAL Id: hal-00704196 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00704196v2 Submitted on 23 Jan 2014 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. The impact of China on global Internet governance in an era of privatized control Séverine Arsène Ph.D in political science, Science Po, France Yahoo! Fellow in residence, Georgetown University (2011‐2012) [email protected] CIRC 2012 Communication Over the last ten years, China has become one of the most prominent actors of the global Internet. It not only has the largest online population (513 million in January 20121). Chinese corporations like ZTE and Huawei are also leaders on the global market for Internet infrastructures and mobile devices. Chinese financial institutions strongly support Chinese corporations’ development overseas by providing funds for massive infrastructure projects, particularly in the telecommunication sector. Furthermore the Chinese government and other private actors are playing an increasingly important role in international fora where Internet governance is discussed, such as the ICANN and the IGF.
  • Antonio Tajani MEP President of the European Parliament Antonio.Tajani@Europarl.Europa.Eu

    Antonio Tajani MEP President of the European Parliament [email protected]

    Antonio Tajani MEP President of the European Parliament [email protected] 12 June 2018 Mr President, Article 13 of the EU Copyright Directive Threatens the Internet As a group of the Internet’s original architects and pioneers and their successors, we write to you as a matter of urgency about an imminent threat to the future of this global network. The European Commission’s proposal for Article 13 of the proposed Directive for Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive was well-intended. As creators ourselves, we share the concern that there should be a fair distribution of revenues from the online use of copyright works, that benefits creators, publishers, and platforms alike. But Article 13 is not the right way to achieve this. By requiring Internet platforms to perform automatic filtering all of the content that their users upload, Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users. Europe has been served well by the balanced liability model established under the Ecommerce Directive, under which those who upload content to the Internet bear the principal responsibility for its legality, while platforms are responsible to take action to remove such content once its illegality has been brought to their attention. By inverting this liability model and essentially making platforms directly responsible for ensuring the legality of content in the first instance, the business models and investments of platforms large and small will be impacted. The damage that this may do to the free and open Internet as we know it is hard to predict, but in our opinions could be substantial.