[anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

In message <9EW8XOCpiyHeFAtx at highwayman.com>, 
Richard Clayton <richard at highwayman.com> wrote:

>these (which are the most interesting parts of the Communications
>Decency Act that did not get invalidated by the application of the First
>Amendment which swept away much of it) provide a safe harbour for the
>people operating platforms regarding what the users of those platforms
>say ... so yes this is very much on point
>
>within the EU (and the RIPE region is far bigger than that) there is NOT
>an equivalent regime -- there is a safe harbour (under the ECommerce
>Directive) for hosting companies but ONLY up to the point at which they
>have "actual knowledge" that material is problematic (eg that it is
>defamatory) after that they are on the hook if they fail to act
>appropriately
>
>companies such as EBay and TripAdvisor are well aware of this and
>operate their platforms accordingly -- so this means that problematic
>material will not be visible within the EU (and doubtless in other RIPE
>region countries) ... whether they remove it entirely (so that US
>residents miss out) I could not say, you'd need to ask each company
>individually as to how they configure their systems

I reiterate and slightly rehprase my question:

Do you people in within the RIPE region see, or not see critical reviews
on, for example, eBay, TripAdvisor, etc?

It is being seriously suggested that eBay erases or makes magically and
selectively invisible just those bad seller (or buyer) reviews which
implicate some draconian defamation laws that exist in some one of
the fiefdoms of Europe, perhaps even one small enough to be entirely
covered in shag carpeting?  It is being seriously suggested that
TripAdvisor likewise selectively erases complaints about lousey coffee
at each and every litigious brothel in Amsterdam?

If this is what is being suggested, then color me skeptical.

>note that companies that operate solely in the USA can take some solace
>from the USA SPEECH Act...

The notion of "operating solely in the USA" is not one which lacks
ambiguity, at least when it comes to Internet-based services, as I am
sure you are all too aware.

Still, pragmatics and commerce, like time and tide, wait for no man.
And the services I have named and used as examples *do* exist, *do*
survive, and *do* provide, collect, organize, and disseminate reviews
entered by globe-spanning armies of individual end users.

I would argue that if they can do it, we can do it.

As regards to jurisdiction and legal responsibility, I would be more than
happy to host the thing here in the United States, and take full, personal,
and sole legal responsibility for it.  I am not afraid, because 47 USC 230(c)
is both abundantly clear and already very much tested, in real courts of
law, and it has consistantly prevailed.  The operator of a platform is
*not* legally liable for the speech of others.  Not in these United States
anyway.

I would do these things, but I cannot -build- such a review platform,
because frankly, I just don't have the time.

That small fact doesn't make it a fundamentally Bad or Unworkable idea.


Regards,
rfg