The (owner of , Instagram and WhatsApp) released one in which it criticizes the proposals made so far in the judgment of the (Supreme Federal Court) regarding the issue and in which it argues that a “balanced solution” should be reached with “clear guidelines” .
“No major democracy in the world has ever attempted to implement a liability regime for digital platforms similar to what has been suggested so far in the STF trial”, says a note this Thursday (12), which cites following rules from the European Union, the States United States and Germany.
With the title “for a balanced decision on the platform liability regime in Brazil”, the company lists what it sees as concerns with part of the arguments that were mentioned in the trial. It also says it supports updating internet rules, but adds “with clear guidelines to face society’s most substantial challenges.”
Meta’s note cites criticism and risks if article 19 of the Marco Civil da Internet is declared unconstitutional — as defended by the ministers and , the only ones to vote so far.
“Digital platforms would be subject to a broad notification and removal regime and, at the same time, could be held responsible for practically all types of content even without having been notified”, says the note.
Meta also searches and talks about its proactive actions.
Also the IAB Brasil (Interactive Advertising Bureau), an association that brings together companies involved in digital advertising, which criticizes the proposals made in the trial involving this activity. Members include Google, Meta, TikTok, iFood, Spotify, Mercado Ads, Globo, SBT and UOL.
According to the IAB note, the regime proposed in the judgment so far — which places companies as responsible for advertisements together with advertisers — “assumes that a vehicle
be able, for example, to validate in advance the stock of an advertised product or guarantee that the price of each published offer is real”.
For the association, this is unfeasible (not only on the internet, but in other media) and “compromises the advertising model as a whole”.
According to the note, the proposal contradicts the jurisprudence of the STJ (Superior Court of Justice) for advertising in all media, adding that the liability of advertising vehicles would be conditioned “on proof of intent or negligence”.
“A proposal other than this would create a worrying precedent, with a different liability regime between advertising broadcast on the internet and in traditional media, such as television and print media”, says the IAB.
The note also highlights the fact that the Marco Civil rule discussed in the trial applies not only to social networks, but to a wide range of actors, highlighting the various companies that act as intermediaries in the delivery of advertisements. “These aspects of the proposal, combined, generate a very serious effect on the sector”, states the IAB.
In recent years, Congress’s attempts to debate more social media duties, including changing their liability regime, ended up stalling. One of the main projects on the subject, the Fake News PL was heavily lobbied by companies, as well as by Bolsonaro politicians, who sought to attach the censorship tag to the proposal.
However, as shown by Sheetif the country follows theses like those presented by Toffoli, .
According to the current rule, networks can only be ordered to pay compensation for their users’ posts after non-compliance with a court order. Approved in 2014, this model was intended to protect freedom of expression, by not encouraging companies to remove content for fear of lawsuits.
The climate in the Supreme Court is favorable to establishing limits on networks, but there should be no consensus on a possible complete overturn of article 19, as Toffoli defended in a vote last week. Furthermore, the number of variables placed in the debate should make it difficult to form a majority for a thesis on the subject — which should be applied by the other courts.
Article 19 does not prevent platforms from applying their own rules to remove content. Nor, however, does it create incentives for them to act.
In his vote, Toffoli proposes as a new general rule that platforms will be held responsible from the moment they are notified. However, he creates content that is moderated or recommended by the networks.
They can now be held responsible for third-party content in cases where they are “unequivocally aware of knowledge of illegal acts”, either because they are “evident” or because they are “duly informed by any suitable means”, and do not immediately remove the content . And he defended the duty of proactive monitoring of criminal content. He still argued in favor of liability even without notification in the case of boosted posts.
