Why should tech firms get away with publishing child pornography and facilitating child sex grooming rings?
<p>I read a recent newspaper report that the UK police force were dealing with <strong>roughly 80,000 cases of online child sex grooming</strong>.</p>

<p>If newspapers, or publishing firms published child pornography there were be a massive uproar. Likewise with tv stations and film studios.  </p>

<p>However tech firms it seems can get away with publishing child pornography and facilitating such grooming rings almost with impunity. Their argument is generally that they provide a resource and can't be held responsible for the behaviour of users. They say that they facilitate 'sharing' whilst eliding over the very visible fact that bad practises can be shared too. </p>

<p>Surely that is an argument that is wearing very thin now. If it takes more man-power than they have readily to hand - well surely they should hire more people. They make enough money as it is. I'll believe Mark Zuckerbergs catchism on 'sharing' when he substantially shares out his massive fortune. </p>

<p>Is there any kind of legal pressure that can be applied on tech firms so that they take a much more proactive line in moderation rather than simply relying on the <strong>unpaid and untrained labour</strong> of thousands of people? If not, does this mean that the legal profession needs to start looking at how such laws can be framed?</p>

<p>Social media platforms are <strong>not</strong> publishers under UK law (at <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/11/government-considers-classifying-google-facebook-publishers" rel="nofollow noreferrer">present</a>), as such, they are not legally responsible for the content they host providing that there is a mechanism for alerting them to infringing material and that, when alerted, they remove it.</p>

<p>As to "why", that is a political question.</p>

social-media public-law