• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Research on the Legal Framework of Content Regulations for Network Platforms

    2024-05-10 07:09:13ZhangYinandLiaoXinyue
    Contemporary Social Sciences 2024年1期

    Zhang Yin and Liao Xinyue

    Southwest University of Political Science and Law

    Abstract: In the era of the Internet,various network platforms have evolved into new hubs for information dissemination.Currently,China has established a platform-centered content regulation framework,wherein platforms proactively enforce content regulations in accordance with legal censorship obligations.Additionally,platform policies and user agreements augment their authority in content regulation.The platforms can achieve cost-effective and highly efficient content regulation by leveraging their strategic advantages enabled by their own technical capabilities and extensive coverage.The platform self-regulation model,however,still faces challenges.First,accurately evaluating content remains a formidable task; second,ensuring effective platform publicity through self-regulation poses difficulties; third,users may potentially face disadvantages due to the platform’s right of self-regulation; and fourth,digital copyright owners face challenges when defending digital copyright disputes under the safe harbor rule.Therefore,it is imperative to establish,review,and revise the legal framework for content regulation of network platforms in order to enhance the efficiency of their governance systems.The formulation of the legal framework for content regulation of network platforms may encompass the following aspects:rationalizing obligations pertaining to platform content regulations,enhancing supervision over platform self-regulation,and establishing a dual-track responsibility system for digital copyright content regulation.This will ensure a harmonious balance among public interests,users’ personal rights and interests,and commercial benefits through regulating the content on network platforms.

    Keywords: content regulations,platform self-regulation,legal framework

    With the advent of the Internet era,digital technology has transformed contemporary society into a “network society” in terms of social structure,a “flexible society” in terms of institutional systems,a “cyber society” in terms of cultural development,and a “self-directed society” in terms of consciousness recognition (Kim & Kim,2018,pp.6-8).Network platforms have evolved into new hubs for information dissemination.In 2021,the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and the State Council jointly issued a guideline on developing a more civilized and well-regulated cyberspace environment.The guideline emphasizes the imperative of enhancing the construction of a more civilized cyberspace environment and highlights the urgency and necessity of promoting the establishment of behavioral norms in cyberspace and strengthening governance to create a healthier online ecosystem.The regulation of network platform content is the fundamental aspect of comprehensive governance in cyberspace.The content on network platforms,being contributed by diverse users,is characterized by a substantial volume of information,rapid transmission speed,extensive influence,and persistent damage that is challenging to eliminate.These factors also amplify the potential for social risks and heighten the complexity of content regulation of network platforms.Network platforms,as privately owned entities of a commercial nature,possess distinctive technical and capital advantages in content regulation.The adoption of platformcentered cyberspace governance has become a popular choice for nations worldwide.The robust growth of the Internet economy has created vast opportunities for commercial interests in the business relationships associated with network platform content.In the current era of the Internet,a new game pattern has emerged where public power,private power,and private rights intersect.Therefore,content regulation of network platforms must be carried out under a tripartite structure consisting of the government (state),platforms,and users.Therefore,the regulation of content on network platforms necessitates the establishment of a legal framework for content regulation.It is necessary to address the challenges posed by the self-regulation model,protect user rights and public interests,and leverage the advantages of platform selfregulation.

    Current Situation of Content Regulation of Network Platforms

    China has established a platform-centered content regulatory framework based on theCybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China(“Cybersecurity Law”) andAdministrative Measures on Internet Information Services,alongside numerous regulations and normative documents.The legal obligation exerts external pressure on platforms,prompting them to proactively engage in self-regulation.The platforms’ inherent technical capabilities and extensive coverage effectively address the technical and economic challenges encountered by traditional administrative regulations,thereby establishing their dominant position in platform governance.

    Power Source of Platform Self-Regulation

    Chinese laws and regulations stipulate that the platform must assume substantial supervisory obligations for information and content regulation,and it shall bear corresponding administrative responsibilities in case of failure to fulfill such obligations.TheAdministrativeMeasures on Internet Information Servicesimplemented in 2000 was the first legislation that imposed substantive supervision obligations on network platforms for information and content regulation.It delineated nine categories of information and content that are prohibited from being disseminated,①See Article 15 of the Administrative Measures on Internet Information Services: “Internet information service providers shall not produce,reproduce,distribute or disseminate information that includes the following contents: (1) content that is against the basic principles determined by the Constitution; (2)content that impairs national security,divulges State secrets,subverts State sovereignty or jeopardizes national unity; (3) content that damages the reputation and interests of the State; (4) content that incites ethnic hostility and ethnic discrimination or jeopardizes unity among ethnic groups; (5) content that damages State religious policies or that advocates sects or feudal superstitions; (6) content that disseminates rumors,disturbs the social order or damages social stability; (7) content that disseminates obscenity,pornography,gambling,violence,homicide and terror,or incites crime; (8) content that insults or slanders others or that infringes their legal rights and interests; and (9) other content prohibited by laws or administrative regulations.”while also imposing record-keeping and reporting obligations on the platforms.②See Article 16 of the Administrative Measures on Internet Information Services: “If an Internet information service provider discovers that information transmitted by its website clearly falls within the contents listed in Article 15 hereof,it shall immediately discontinue the transmission of such information,keep relevant records and make a report to relevant State authorities.”TheAdministrative Measures on Internet Information Services(revised draft for opinion-seeking in 2021) has reinforced the obligation of network platforms in information and content regulation.TheCybersecurity Lawintroduced in 2016,as the first specialized law in the field of cybersecurity in China,also stipulated that network operators assume responsibility for regulating user-generated information and content while implementing appropriate measures to deal with illicit content.③See Article 55 of the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China: “When a cybersecurity incident occurs,the cybersecurity incident response plan shall be initiated immediately,and the incident shall be investigated and assessed.Network operators shall adopt technical measures and other necessary measures to eliminate hidden security threats and prevent the spread of harm,and must promptly issue warnings which are relevant to the public.”TheCybersecurity Lawimposes more stringent regulatory obligations on network platforms in comparison to theAdministrative Measures on Internet Information Services.First,the scope of illegal content is expanded beyond the nine categories of prohibited content to include a recapitulative statement,thereby broadening the coverage of illegal content.Second,it imposes obligations on network platforms to identify and remove illegal information and content.Additionally,it eliminates the statement of “obviously illegal content” in theAdministrative Measures on Internet Information Services,thereby imposing stricter censorship obligations on platforms.Finally,it stipulates that the network operators shall bear corresponding administrative responsibilities in the event of their failure to fulfill regulatory obligations.In such cases,the penalties imposed will extend beyond previous operational sanctions.④See Article 68 of the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China: “If a network operator violates Article 47 of this Law by failing to stop the transmission of information which is prohibited from being published or transmitted by laws or administrative regulations,failing to employ disposition measures such as deletion,or failing to retain relevant records,the relevant competent department shall order the operator to take corrective action,issue a warning,and confiscate any illegal income.If corrective action is refused or in serious circumstances,a fine of RMB100,000 to RMB500,000 shall be levied and the operator may be ordered to temporarily suspend business,take down its website,or the operator’s business permits or licenses may be revoked; the directly responsible supervisor and other directly responsible personnel shall be subject to a fine of RMB10,000 to RMB100,000.”

    The platform’s capacity to exercise self-regulatory authority in content regulation is derived from the obligations imposed by laws and regulations pertaining to platform content regulations.The legal framework for regulating platform content in China can be divided into three levels: the first level pertains to the criteria for identifying illegal content; the second level involves the platform’s obligations in addressing illegal content; and the third level encompasses the disposal of potential consequences arising from the platform’s failure or refusal to fulfill its relevant processing obligations as mandated (Kong,2020,pp.133–148).Under this legal framework,platforms will proactively regulate user-generated content to fulfill their obligations.From the perspective of the theory of administrative law,self-regulation is considered one of the mechanisms through which the state leverages private entities in society to assist in accomplishing public tasks (Gao,2015,pp.73–98).Chinese laws and regulations delineate the obligations of network platforms in content regulation but do not confer upon them any specific authority or powers.Network platforms are neither explicitly authorized by laws and regulations,nor entrusted by relevant administrative entities to carry out self-regulation.According to the administrative laws in the civil law system in the Chinese mainland,such self-regulatory authority does not fall under administrative authorization or delegation; instead,platforms are required to engage in self-regulation due to the obligations imposed by laws and regulations.By doing so,platforms,as private entities,are included in the process of regulating network platform content.Therefore,within China’s Internet governance system,platforms leverage their technical capabilities and extensive coverage to establish a dominant position and enable self-regulation through the formulation of platform policies and user agreements that align with the content regulation obligations stipulated by laws and regulations.

    The platform policies and user agreements are the formal embodiment of the power source underlying platform self-regulation.The platform gains the authority to carry out governance activities for its users through private law processes.The vast majority of network platforms have established internal platform policies,which require users to agree to and enter into a user agreement to register an account and access the complete range of services provided by the platform.The introduction of relevant regulations and normative documents signifies that the platform’s governance approach through the formulation of platform policies and user agreements,has gained recognition from administrative authorities.①See the Provisions on the Management of Internet Forum Community Services,the Provisions on the Management of Internet User Public Account Information Services,the Regulations on Internet-Based Live Broadcasting Businesses,and other normative documents.The platform possesses the authority to regulate user behaviors due to users’ reliance on the platform infrastructure for information dissemination.The platform gains the authority to conduct governance activities in the realm of private law by establishing platform policies and signing user agreements with users.

    Methods for Content Regulation Under the Platform Self-Regulation Model

    As for content regulation of network platforms,with the advancement of network technology,network platforms are playing an increasingly vital role in information dissemination,posing challenges for administrative authorities to effectively regulate the vast amount of information and content on these platforms using traditional censorship methods.Therefore,the highly efficient and cost-effective content regulation of network platforms can,to a certain extent,be achieved by leveraging the platform’s dominant position in the Internet architecture and establishing legal obligations pertaining to content regulation for platforms while capitalizing on their inherent technical advantages.

    To effectively achieve content regulation of network platforms,the platforms have established two parallel governance mechanisms,namely pre-examination and postprocessing,to address illegal content.In practice,the pre-examination mechanism primarily functions to prevent the entry of illegal content into the platform through a pre-set keyword shielding system established by the platform.The implementation of automatic filtering,identification,and interception of inappropriate content through technological means has become a crucial strategy for alleviating the burden of network platforms on content regulation and enhancing their content regulation capabilities.Meanwhile,the recent development and application of automatic identification and filtering technologies also provide a compelling rationale for assigning greater responsibilities to network platforms on content regulation (Wei,2020,pp.27–33).Upon conducting a thorough review or upon receiving user complaints,the platform will evaluate instances of content violations and subsequently implement appropriate post-processing measures based on the severity of each violation.These measures primarily encompass content shielding and deletion,user blocking and expulsion,as well as restrictions on external link access.

    The platforms’ content regulation efforts go beyond just removing illegal content due to their dominant position in Internet governance.With the advancement of big data technology,platforms leverage their own technological and capital advantages to deliver personalized content to specific users,promote promotional content to non-specific users,and establish a user account weight mechanism.This also signifies that the platform possesses actual control over the dissemination of compliant information and content.

    The advantages of platform self-regulation on content are primarily manifested in the following aspects: First,the platform content serves as both the source of information to be regulated and the target of regulation,enabling prompt handling of illegal content upon detection,thereby overcoming the time delay associated with traditional administrative regulations.Second,the massive,instantaneous,and interactive nature of Internet information dissemination makes content regulation relying on technology and algorithms the optimal approach to regulating content on network platforms.The platform,equipped with essential technical advantages and expertise,demonstrates superior performance in regulating content on network platforms compared to the traditional administrative regulation mode in terms of both cost and efficiency.Third,owing to the borderless nature of the Internet,both the content and users of network platforms possess decentralized characteristics that transcend national boundaries.Furthermore,platform self-regulation can overcome jurisdictional restrictions imposed by national boundaries.Fourth,the platform is not only bound by external legal obligations but also internally driven to enforce self-regulation of network content.Cultivating a favorable communication environment on the platform can effectively attract and retain users,thereby promoting the platform’s economic benefits and long-term development.

    Dilemma of Content Regulation of Network Platforms

    The network platform,under the mode of self-regulation,has effectively established a dominant position in content regulation and emerged as the entity possessing “discourse power” in cyberspace due to its advanced technical capabilities and extensive coverage.The design of governance mechanisms for network platforms often prioritizes the maximization of private economic interests,given their nature as private entities,while also striving for highly efficient and cost-effective governance.Consequently,the self-regulation model for content regulation on these platforms entails both risks and deficiencies.

    Platforms Face Challenges in Accurately Assessing the Content

    The current laws and regulations have relatively vague standards for identifying illegal information,resulting in a lack of clear judgment criteria for platforms attempting content regulation.TheCybersecurity Lawand theAdministrative Measures on Internet Information Serviceshave provided a more comprehensive definition of illegal information; however,the absence of clear criteria for content judgment remains an ongoing issue.Some scholars have summarized the issues about determining harmful information on the Internet as follows: Despite the existence of corresponding provisions in current legislation,deficiencies persist within the legislative system in terms of its unity,rationality,and clarity due to the presence of diverse legislative bodies,varying normative levels,and an excessively broad design of relevant provisions.Consequently,there may arise problems such as “different verdicts in the same kind of case,” subjective interpretations,misuse of authority,and challenges in implementation (Yin,2015,pp.102–113).

    The diverse content and varied expression approaches on network platforms pose a challenge for the platform to accurately judge the content during the examination process.The borderless nature of the Internet enables the unrestricted exchange of content and information on a global scale,transcending national boundaries.Although content that poses a threat to national security has been classified as illegal information and there are legal norms in place for its handling,①See Article 50 of the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China: “The national cyberspace authorities and relevant departments shall be responsible for monitoring and managing the security of online content.Where they discover the publication or transmission of information that is prohibited by laws or administrative regulations,they shall request that network operators stop the transmission of such information and employ removal measures such as deletion,as well as retain relevant records; for information described above that comes from outside of the territory of the People’s Republic of China,they shall notify the relevant organization to adopt technical measures and other necessary measures to block the transmission of such information.”it is still challenging to accurately identify specific instances involving“invisible” cultural export and negative incitement related to social culture,national culture,and the dissemination of opinions on major social events due to the limitations of the current technological capabilities.The platform is incapable of effectively blocking such content through its pre-examination mechanism based on keyword filtering,while the personnel in the post-processing mechanism lack the capacity to make corresponding value judgments,thereby presenting challenges in identifying and assessing imperceptible illegal content.

    The stringent regulatory responsibilities imposed on platforms by administrative authorities,coupled with their inclination to prioritize final outcomes when evaluating platform governance performance,have led to a lack of intrinsic motivation for platforms to make accurate value judgments on content.Chinese laws and regulations stipulate that the platforms have responsibilities to regulate content,with corresponding penalties for violations.Although stricter restrictions on users may harm user stickiness,platforms often opt for implementing more rigorous screening mechanisms for users instead of investing in larger examination costs or facing penalties.As a result,in practice,the platform usually lacks sufficient motivation to rigorously judge content.

    Self-Regulation Model Can Hardly Facilitate Platforms to Fulfill Their Public Obligations

    The obligations imposed on network platforms by Chinese laws and regulations necessitate platforms to assume certain functions of public management in terms of content regulation.The active engagement of platforms in activities related to network information and content regulation constitutes a crucial component of the comprehensive network governance system,wherein platforms effectively assume the role of the primary entity responsible for social governance and play a certain role in safeguarding the order of cyberspace as well as the rights and interests of users.Their public nature has become increasingly prominent as market regulators (Liu,2019,pp.42–56).These platforms,being private entities primarily driven by commercial interests,are inevitably inclined to establish various rules and regulations within their system that promote their own development and pursuit of commercial interests.However,this may inadvertently limit or even deprive other entities of their rights and resources due to the “Matthew effect” of economic growth and the profit-seeking nature inherent in any commercial private entity (Sun,2021).For instance,a foreign browser exploits its dominant market position by utilizing the summaries,news,and other content from media websites through its search engine without charge,consequently leading to a decline in user traffic for these websites.Moreover,certain search engines will prioritize paid content or the information of enterprises that have a partnership with the platform through algorithm settings,which may mislead some users and increase the risk of users making misjudgments based on inaccurate information.

    With the advancement of the Internet economy,there have emerged certain inevitable transformations and challenges in network content.These are primarily characterized by the Matthew effect,substandard content,susceptibility to platform manipulation,and proliferation of the influence of Internet troll armies (Zeng & Tian,2019,pp.166–167).The emergence of network public relations companies further demonstrates the substantial commercial benefits derived from the content regulation of network platforms.Network public relations companies perceive the combination of the good network reputation maintained by some enterprises and individuals and the actual control of network platforms over content as business opportunities in the Internet era.The network public relations companies,in fact,function as “intermediary traders” who profit from the price spread by charging users in need of public relations services and paying fees to the platform in exchange for the authorization to publish or remove targeted content on it.Users with a large demand for network public relations services can also establish direct collaborations with the platform.For instance,there might be scenarios where a TV series or film dominates the trending hashtag for an entire month after its release,or instances of content related to a celebrity being banned and relevant keywords being removed.Due to the commercial nature of the network platform,network public relations behaviors pose low technical difficulty on the platform and hold significant commercial interests,which makes the platform consistently pleased to witness its development.The platforms,however,tend to overlook the risks of distortion or manipulation in transmitting information and the resulting harm to public interests caused by such network public relations behaviors.

    In addition,there exists a potential risk that the platform may exploit its dominant position to infringe upon users’ right to engage in public discourse.The network platform,serving as a new hub for information dissemination in the Internet era,leverages its technical capabilities and extensive coverage to connect vast amounts of information with diverse user groups,thus establishing itself as a public domain for the public to acquire and disseminate information.Through content regulation,these platforms can exert certain control over social opinion and public life.Due to their technical advantages and privileges,these platforms employ algorithmic recommendations,trending topics,search rankings,and other technical means to grant specific or non-specific users preferential access to certain content.This approach is more covert yet exerts a greater influence compared to paid news and advertising in traditional media.

    Platforms,in the social interactions they facilitate,establish online spaces that are governed by platform architecture and algorithms.In such spaces,the potential risks associated with content could have significant negative impacts on society (Price,2021,pp.238–261).The lower operating costs of network platforms enable them to attract a large user base,thereby increasing the likelihood of oligopoly compared to traditional enterprises.The Internet industry has witnessed the emergence of a new type of competition,where a few dominant enterprises hold the majority of the market share.Often,the largest players capture more than half of the market share,surpassing their closest competitors by several folds.Such examples include Facebook,Apple,Microsoft,Google,and Amazon in the United States,as well as Baidu,Alibaba,and Tencent in China (Han & Li,2020,pp.104–110).The closure of Trump’s social accounts by Twitter and Facebook in 2021 demonstrated the noteworthy influence that leading network platforms can exert on public opinion and even political affairs.Therefore,there are risks that the super platforms and technology giants may exert absolute control over speech and information flow in the digital era.This issue also presents an inevitable challenge in China’s regulation efforts on network platform content.

    Platforms’ Exercise of Self-Regulation Undermines Users’ Position

    The authority of self-regulation possessed by network platforms falls within the realm of private power.This authority stems from the dominance and influence of platforms derived from their technical advantages (Zhou,2015,pp.37–43),and is manifested in the unbalanced or asymmetrical legal relationships between private entities (Xu,2018,pp.105–121).In the era of the Internet,digitalization has transformed the formation mechanism of powers through“technological prowess” that indirectly impacts others’ capabilities by intervening or altering their natural and artificial living conditions (Meier & Blum,2020,pp.70–75).By establishing platform policies and signing user agreements,platforms have established a contractual relationship with users in the realm of private law.However,owing to their technological prowess,information superiority,and architectural advantages,platforms have actually gained dominance over users,resulting in an imbalanced power dynamic where users lack substantial bargaining power.During the process of formulating platform policies and user agreements,users are not allowed to participate in or negotiate the terms set forth; they can only choose whether to accept them.However,declining acceptance implies exclusion from accessing the range of services provided by the platform.The self-regulation model grants the platform direct and “private” authority to oversee and regulate its content,thereby enhancing the platform’s discretionary power in evaluating such content (Li,2019,pp.834–842).The disadvantageous position of users is manifested in the following aspects:

    First,the examination mechanism of the platform,whether it involves technical or manual examination,lacks the essential attributes of openness and transparency required for procedural justice in terms of both the examination process and criteria.This limitation hampers users’ right to be informed and right to redress to a certain extent.Moreover,platforms may manipulate content examination for commercial profits,thereby compromising the rights and interests of users (Madio & Quinn,2023).

    Second,although there are reporting and appealing channels available for users to raise objections or seek redress in the platform policies,they are still handled by respective platforms.In practice,the more common scenario is that the queue for manual customer service tends to be lengthy.Even if users patiently wait for a response from manual customer service,they often receive formulaic “official” replies that hinder their effective communication with the platform.Consequently,it becomes challenging for users to have their rights and interests adequately protected and redressed through internal channels of the platform.

    Third,the platform policies and user agreements typically specify the content regarding the transfer of a portion of users’ rights and interests through standard terms.Although this will promote effective platform governance,it further exacerbates the imbalanced contractual power dynamics between the platform and its users.For example,theWeibo Online ServiceAgreementstipulates that users shall,by any means,refrain from causing any harm to the business reputation and other legitimate rights and interests of its operator Weimeng Company and the associated companies,as well as engaging in any activities that disrupt the normal operation of Weimeng,undermine the business model of Weibo,or otherwise jeopardize the integrity of Weibo’s ecosystem.The provision,in essence,limits users’ ability to provide constructive criticism and express their dissatisfaction with the platform.

    Fourth,theWeibo Online Service Agreementalso includes a provision stating that once a user registers a Weibo account,the platform will assume that the user agrees to have various types of commercial advertisements or other commercial information placed by the operator in different ways throughout the provision of Weibo services (including,but not limited to,placing advertisements on any page of the Weibo platform website),and consents to receiving product promotions or other relevant commercial information from the operator through email,private messages,or other means.It can be seen that the platform has generated significant commercial profits by mandating users to transfer their rights and interests through standard terms.However,users are exposed to the risk of discerning whether the content they browse genuinely reflects other users’ sentiments or if it contains covert advertisements placed by the platform.

    Challenges Faced by Digital Copyright Owners in Safeguarding Their Rights Under the Safe Harbor Rule

    The safe harbor rule provides legal protection for the platform,exempting it from tort liability that may arise during the content regulation process.The safe harbor rule was initially introduced in theDigital Millennium Copyright Actenacted by the United States in 1998,while the EU also incorporated an exemption system for tort liability in theE-commerceDirective 2000/31/EC.The principle conditionally restricts the copyright infringement liability of providers engaged in information transmission,system caching,information hosting,and information positioning services,and was initially applied within the realm of copyright protection.In the initial stages of Internet development,due to the limited capacity of network intermediary service providers to conduct prior content examination,they were generally presumed unaware of infringement information.As a result,the “Notice-Take Down” rule was implemented to restrict the indirect infringement liability of these providers.

    The application of the safe harbor rule in China is primarily reflected in the relevant provisions of theRegulation on the Protection of the Right of Communication to the Public onInformation Networks.These provisions specify under what conditions various Internet service providers can be exempted from liability and enjoy safe harbor treatment.①See Articles 20,21,22,and 23 of the Regulation on the Protection of the Right of Communication to the Public on Information Networks.The safe harbor rule also applies to network platforms,in principle.TheMeasures for the Administrative Protection of Internet Copyrightsstipulate that “Where there is no evidence to prove that an Internet information service provider knows the facts of a tort,or the Internet information service provider has taken measures to remove relevant contents after receipt of the copyright owner’s notice,the Internet information service provider shall not assume the administrative legal liabilities.”②See Article 12 of the Measures for the Administrative Protection of Internet Copyright.

    With the continuous development of China’s network industry and advancements in technology,the safe harbor rule established for copyright protection is proving inadequate to address the challenges posed by digital copyright in the Internet era.Instead,it has transformed into a “safe harbor” for network platforms.In particular,it may potentially evolve into a protective shield enabling the platforms to evade liability for tort compensation.This is evident in practices such as engaging in deliberate infringement prior to receiving a notice of infringement,claiming no liability if no notice of infringement is received,and claiming no liability if the content is removed upon receiving the notice of infringement.In the practice of content regulation of network platforms in China,it is challenging to provide evidence that“an Internet information service provider clearly knows the facts of tort.” The aforementioned challenge frequently results in platforms being inactive when it comes to seeking evidence regarding whether the communicated content constitutes infringement based on the safe harbor rule.In light of this,the determination of tort liability generally relies on the proactive notification by the copyright owners to the Internet information service provider regarding the fact of tort.In practice,the approach to ensure that platforms are aware of copyright infringement mainly relies on copyright holders raising objections.However,since there are numerous large and small network platforms,it becomes excessively costly and challenging for copyright owners to individually identify and notify each instance of infringement in order to effectively protect their rights.

    Feasible Paths for Establishing Legal Framework for Content Regulation of Network Platforms

    The advent of the intelligent Internet has given rise to a new and complex game pattern,wherein public power,private power,and private rights intersect.Within this pattern,cooperation and confrontation can arise between any of the two.This has significantly transformed the structure and function of the relationship between the state and society,as well as power and rights in the past (Ma,2018,pp.20–38).While employing the selfregulatory capabilities of network platforms enabled by their technical and information advantages to implement content regulation,it is necessary to establish and improve the corresponding legal framework.The mode for the content regulation of network platforms should involve both the intervention of public power and the regulation of private power (Kong,2020,pp.133–148).

    Rationalizing Obligations for Platform Content Regulation

    The legal framework for content regulation of network platforms should refrain from imposing overly rigid requirements when it comes to obligations for platform content regulation.The excessively strict obligations imposed on platforms will significantly harm the platform business model,hinder technological innovation,and impede market competition(Lefouili & Madio,2022,pp.319–351).The public nature of network platforms should be emphasized during the process of regulating platform content,while also taking into consideration the market characteristics of these platforms as for-profit commercial entities when determining their regulatory obligations.The digital information industry boasts a unique operating law,characterized by rapid innovation in both technology and business models (Tang & Tang,2023,pp.59–72).The improper emphasis solely on the platform’s primary responsibility will result in excessive operating costs and an overly formalized approach to content regulation,thereby compromising public interests and potentially excluding the government from bearing corresponding regulatory obligations (Liu,2022,pp.79–93).Relying solely on legal liability as an external pressure has been proven insufficient in effectively curbing platforms’ manipulation of content examination for their own commercial gains.The establishment of a sound platform liability system necessitates striking a balance between commercial autonomy and content compliance (Wei,2020,pp.27–33).Therefore,the commercial behaviors resulting from platform content regulation should be integrated into the legal regulatory framework.While respecting the commercial nature of the platform,it is important to encourage reasonable commercial competition and cooperation among platforms within the market law of Internet economy development.Administrative authorities need to implement dynamic supervision in the process of platform governance,and timely identify and deal with platform behaviors that may undermine public interests or users’ rights and interests.

    Moreover,administrative authorities should avoid prioritizing final outcomes when evaluating platform governance performance.The supervision of administrative authorities in the content regulation of network platforms in China is primarily ensured through interviews conducted by the Office of the Central Cyberspace Affairs Commission with platform leaders,as well as special actions of administrative law enforcement.However,both interviews and special law enforcement actions belong to the post-administrative accountability means,and administrative authorities tend to prioritize final outcomes when evaluating whether platforms have fulfilled their regulatory obligations or not.Some scholars argue that the platform’s responsibility is predicated on the presence of illegal information,rather than any inherent fault on the part of the platform.This essentially imposes stringent obligations on platforms regarding content regulation (Yao,2019,pp.31–42).In order to be exempt from liability,the platform can only adopt stricter restrictions on the content examination,for example,setting more detailed filtering terms,and embracing the examination principle of “presumed guilt for any suspected violation,” thereby directly prohibiting information that may potentially cause infringement or violate the law.The excessively stringent obligations imposed on platforms will transform them into examinants of social discourse and undermine the diversity of content (Hogan Lovells,2018,pp.1–28).It may have an impact on users’ freedom of expression,potentially impeding the platform’s role as a hub for gathering and sharing information.

    The platform should be empowered to ascertain the legality of content based on legal principles in cases where laws and regulations are ambiguous.In the process of content regulation,if promptly ascertaining the legality of content proves challenging,platforms can employ principles such as the clear and present danger doctrine,case-by-case evaluation,and content classification governance to determine and address each case.The clear and present danger doctrine can be summarized as the principle that justified limitations on freedom of speech are necessary when the content may pose significant potential harm due to specific circumstances.The principle of case-by-case evaluation was initially applied to the court during the process of adjudicating relevant cases,which grants judges greater discretionary power.In the context of content regulation,the “balance of interests theory” can be extensively employed to assess the weight of various conflicting rights and their respective consequences resulting from protection or suppression.Subsequently,a judgment can be made regarding which rights should receive what degree of protection before proceeding with content regulation.The principle of content classification governance involves organizing content into political,commercial,and unprotected categories.Since legal protections differ for each category of content,network platforms must regulate the content according to its category (Xie& Song,2022,pp.67–79).

    Improving Supervision over Platform Self-Regulation

    The platform possesses technical and operational advantages in implementing content regulation activities through self-regulation,yet the absence of effective supervision may result in the abuse of platform governance power.Therefore,it is imperative to establish and improve the legal framework for content regulation of network platforms to bolster supervision over platform self-regulation.

    Introducing Due Process of Law in Platform Self-regulation

    The supervision of administrative authorities over the content regulation of network platforms should not be limited to imposing obligations in advance and holding them accountable afterward.In the process of establishing platform policies and user agreements,administrative authorities should exercise regulatory functions.The administrative authorities should guide the implementation of the self-regulatory mechanism of platforms,ensuring that they operate in accordance with legal rules.

    The exercise of national public power is bound by the principle of due process of law,but the platform may avoid adhering to the requirements of due process when exercising its private power.This places users at a disadvantage and poses challenges for them to protect and redress their rights and interests.The platform,with its distinctive resource advantages and technical capabilities,has the potential to establish a monopoly over rulemaking,rule implementation,penalties,and other related rights.Such a monopoly serves as a pathway to acquiring power (Mann,2018,p.29).The advantages of platforms in technology,information,and architecture can empower them to exert control over their users.When platforms engage in self-regulation of platform content,they exercise “quasi-legislative power,” “quasi-administrative power,” and “quasi-judicial power” similar to national public power in the actual interaction with users.This is primarily manifested in three aspects: the establishment of platform policies and user agreements,the handling of illegal content,and the handling of user complaints.The platform’s quasi-legislative power is manifested through its rule-making authority exercised during the establishment of platform policies and user agreements.The exercise of the platform’s rulemaking power in practice deprives users of their rights to participate in the process or negotiate relevant terms.As bound parties,users are not granted the opportunity to engage in rulemaking or raise objections.Consequently,the platform exercises complete control over rulemaking,leveraging its advantageous position derived from its extensive coverage.The “quasi-administrative power” refers to the platform’s power to address illegal content during the process of content regulation,which is similar to administrative enforcement power.The platform reserves the right to block and delete relevant content,or even ban or expel users if it considers the content involved to be illegal.However,during this process,it is challenging for users to safeguard their rights to be informed,to address inquiries,and to redress regarding the platform’s examination criteria and handling measures.The “Quasi-judicial power” involves the users submitting their redress applications to the platform,and the decisions made by the platform regarding these applications are considered final since the platform’s internal organs are the agents responsible for accepting users’ appeals and processing redress applications.

    The principle of due process of law serves as the premise and guarantee for the platform to achieve efficient governance in the course of self-regulation.Therefore,it is both necessary and reasonable to incorporate this principle into the process of platform self-regulation.Only through this approach can a harmonious and healthy relationship between the platform and users be established under the platform self-regulation model.In the exercise of the “quasilegislative power,” it is important to ensure that users have the right to participate in the process of formulating platform policies and user agreements and raise objections,as required by the principle of due process of law.In the exercise of the “quasi-administrative power,”platforms are required,under the principle of due process of law,to actively disclose their key filtering term lists,keep their examination process and criteria transparent,and take responsibility for any negligence.The exercise of “quasi-judicial power” necessitates the disclosure of the process and grounds for appeal,allowing users to re-appeal the platform’s processing procedures and outcomes,in accordance with the principle of due process.

    Establishing Relevant Supporting Systems

    First,establishing a comprehensive system for recording and reviewing platform policies and user agreements.With the superimposed development of algorithms,big data,and the digital economy,platform policy formulation is progressing in a progressively sophisticated,technical,and intricate direction.Therefore,it is imperative for government agencies to scrutinize platform policies in order to mitigate the risk of misinterpretation stemming from the knowledge gap between users and platforms while also lowering the threshold for public comprehension of said policies.Relevant departments of the administrative authorities should carefully examine the platform policies and user agreements,and then provide corresponding suggestions for rectification and modification.This will ensure that the platform policies accurately reflect their public nature and safeguard public interests,thereby bolstering the rationality of such policies.In addition,the Office of the Central Cyberspace Affairs Commission and other departments can take the lead in providing normative guidance for formulating platform policies,user agreements,platform service content,privacy policies,and other key regulations of the platform.This will ensure a balanced approach to addressing the interests of various stakeholders during the formulation process of such regulations.

    Second,building government redress channels for users to submit reporting and appeals.When enforcing the law,administrative authorities are obligated to adhere to the fundamental requirements of due process,which encompass providing prior notification and offering opportunities for the counterpart to present their statement and defense.The counterpart has the right to raise objections regarding both substantive and procedural aspects of the law enforcement actions,as well as file an administrative lawsuit with judicial authorities to review the legality and rationality of such administrative behavior.However,in the process of content regulation of network platforms,the internal redress channels provided by the platform are still part of the platform’s governance mechanism and represent its own interests.Therefore,in the absence of alternative channels for redress except the platform’s internal redress mechanism and for resorting to legal action,users’ rights and interests may not be fully safeguarded.Even if users believe that the platform’s governance behavior is inappropriate and decide to file a civil lawsuit to the court,they may face exacerbated costs in safeguarding their rights and interests due to the lengthy litigation process and the principle that civil cases should be heard in the jurisdiction where the defendant is located.The court’s evaluation of standard terms in the judicial practice of our country varies significantly,as it can only adjudicate disputes on specific content outlined in the user agreement signed between users and platforms.Given that platform policies and user agreements predominantly belong to standard terms,there exists considerable divergence in how courts assess these provisions.Furthermore,the court’s assessment of whether a platform has fulfilled its obligation for reasonable promptness through the presentation of standard terms is also inconsistent (Hu & Li,2019,pp.53–62).Therefore,the effectiveness of judicial redress based on civil legal relationships between users and platforms is inferior to that of administrative redress.Given this,the feasible approach to offer efficient and convenient redress for users is to establish redress channels akin to administrative redress.In the process of fulfilling their supervisory responsibilities,relevant government departments should create mechanisms for administrative review,enabling users to submit reporting and appeals regarding platform behaviors and question platform policies and user agreements.Furthermore,it is essential to include the provision of redress channels for users within the scope of administrative authorities’ supervisory functions.

    Third,developing a regular public reporting system.To ensure the transparency required by due process,it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions outlined in Germany’sNetwork Enforcement Act in 2017.According to this Act,social network platforms that receive more than 100 complaints per year are obligated to produce a semiannual report and publish it on both Bundesanzeiger and their websites’ home pages,providing comprehensive details regarding its contents.The UK’sOnline Harms White Paperpublished in 2019 also mandates regulated platforms to produce and publish annual transparency reports,encompassing the dissemination of harmful content on the platform as well as the corresponding measures implemented by said platform.The report will be published by regulatory authorities who possess the authority to demand additional information from the platform,including algorithmic operations.By drawing on the experience of foreign systems,China should also establish a robust public reporting system.The reports should include regular public disclosures in the form of the platform’s semi-annual or annual report,as well as those drafted based on a specific number of user complaints.It is the responsibility of administrative regulatory authorities to determine the content of these reports and organize users to engage in discussions regarding the content of the report.Additionally,these authorities should provide detailed provisions to stipulate the specific content.

    Establishing a Dual-track Responsibility Mechanism for Digital Copyright Content Regulation

    The Red Flags Rule,which serves as a fundamental component of the safe harbor rule,has been employed by numerous copyright owners in litigations against the platforms that function as website operators for infringement.The safe harbor rule is a general principle,while The Red Flags Rule represents its application in specific cases.Internet service providers can only be exempt from legal liability if they were not clearly aware or should not have been aware that the information they transmit constitutes infringement,or that linked works,performances,audio,and video recordings belong to infringing works.Article 23 of theRegulation on theProtection of the Right of Communication to the Public on Information Networksembodies The Red Flags Rule.①See Article 23 of the Regulation on the Protection of the Right of Communication to the Public on Information Networks: “A network service provider which provides searching or linking service to a service recipient and which,upon receiving a written notification of the right owner,disconnects the link to an infringing work,performance,or sound or video recording in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations bears no liability for compensation;however,if it knows or has reasonable grounds to know that the linked work,performance,or sound or video recording is an infringement,it shall bear the liability for contributory infringement.”However,during the initial phase of Internet development in China,courts held divergent interpretations regarding the application of the safe harbor rule.Consequently,numerous piracy websites exploited this rule to evade accountability,while search engines and sharing platforms still perceive it as a crucial safeguard against liability.Therefore,the application of The Red Flags Rule should be emphasized in legislation or through guiding cases of the Supreme People’s Court,highlighting its priority over the safe harbor rule when determining network infringement.

    The safe harbor rule is widely recognized as a crucial legal incentive for promoting the innovation of early Internet technology and business models,serving as the foundational pillar of the thriving Internet economy.The advancement of Internet technology has greatly facilitated the implementation of automatic filtering technology,thereby significantly reducing the difficulty and cost for network platforms to conduct content pre-examination.Consequently,a unique development background for the Internet has been created,where The Red Flags Rule prevails.Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC,it is stipulated that content-sharing service platforms will be held directly liable for “communicating infringing content to the public”when users publish copyrighted works that violate these rights.ThisDirectiveexcludes the application of the safe harbor rule for content-sharing service platforms in cases of usergenerated content infringement and imposes an obligation on such platforms to obtain prior authorization for copyright and related rights,thereby avoiding post-event general content examination.Additionally,it aims to reduce platform costs associated with obtaining copyright authorization by implementing collective licensing mechanisms and negotiation mechanisms for various rights.These measures will overcome certain limitations inherent in the safe harbor rule’s reliance on copyright owners issuing infringement notices.Therefore,the application of The Red Flags Rule should be emphasized in legislation or through guiding cases of the Supreme People’s Court,highlighting its priority over the safe harbor rule when determining network infringement.

    The establishment of an efficient copyright content regulation responsibility system necessitates the implementation of a dual-track accountability framework wherein the responsibilities held by rights owners and platforms are clearly defined (De Chiara,Manna,& Rubí-Puig,et al.,2021).Therefore,China should also prioritize the implementation of The Red Flags Rule.The administrative authorities should take the lead in establishing a comprehensive digital copyright information database to effectively safeguard the rights of copyright owners by actively encouraging them to upload their copyrighted works onto this platform.Moreover,proactive measures such as employing advanced algorithms and technical means should be adopted by platforms to compare their content with the registered digital copyright information database.It is imperative for platforms to address any relevant content that has been registered in the digital copyright information database rather than solely relying on notifications from copyright owners.This approach delineates the respective responsibilities of platforms and copyright owners in terms of being clearly aware of copyright infringement,thereby enhancing the safeguarding of digital copyright.

    Conclusion

    The platform-centered content regulation of network platforms has become a prevalent approach in cyberspace governance for many countries today.However,given the emerging game pattern in the Internet era where public power,private power,and private rights intersect,it is imperative to establish and refine the relevant legal framework for content regulation of network platforms in order to address the shortcomings and risks associated with the platform self-regulation model.The involvement of public power should not be overlooked in the formulation of specific legal rules,and its intervention should not be excessively stringent.If the platform becomes a mere instrument for implementing administrative decisions,it will lose its advantages in regulating network content and hinder information exchange,content innovation,and fair competition in the Internet era.Public power should be defined as the role of a supervisor and guide when constructing the legal framework for content regulation of network platforms.Efforts should be made to strike a balance between public interests,users’ individual rights,and platform commercial interests in regulating the content on these platforms.

    欧美一级毛片孕妇| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 免费观看精品视频网站| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 国产av又大| 久久久久国内视频| 91成年电影在线观看| 亚洲第一av免费看| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 免费在线观看日本一区| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 国产一卡二卡三卡精品| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器 | 777久久人妻少妇嫩草av网站| av电影中文网址| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 高清在线国产一区| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频 | 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 在线视频色国产色| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区 | 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 久热这里只有精品99| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 精品久久久久久,| 国产成人欧美| 精品国产亚洲在线| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 无限看片的www在线观看| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 日本wwww免费看| 国产色视频综合| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 麻豆av在线久日| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影| 日韩视频一区二区在线观看| 久久香蕉国产精品| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 99re在线观看精品视频| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av | 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 91精品三级在线观看| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 国产三级在线视频| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 最好的美女福利视频网| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 午夜福利欧美成人| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 国产成人系列免费观看| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 悠悠久久av| 午夜视频精品福利| 欧美日韩av久久| 精品国产亚洲在线| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 精品国产亚洲在线| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 欧美性长视频在线观看| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 99国产精品99久久久久| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 看黄色毛片网站| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 搡老乐熟女国产| 黄片播放在线免费| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 黄片播放在线免费| 久久青草综合色| 日日夜夜操网爽| 99国产精品99久久久久| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 午夜91福利影院| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| www.www免费av| 国产精华一区二区三区| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 久久香蕉激情| 精品国产一区二区久久| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 色综合婷婷激情| 美国免费a级毛片| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 色综合站精品国产| 大型av网站在线播放| 亚洲五月天丁香| 香蕉国产在线看| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 曰老女人黄片| 777久久人妻少妇嫩草av网站| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 深夜精品福利| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 日韩人妻精品一区2区三区| 香蕉国产在线看| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 级片在线观看| 色综合婷婷激情| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看 | 亚洲成人免费av在线播放| av中文乱码字幕在线| 在线视频色国产色| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 久久婷婷成人综合色麻豆| 在线国产一区二区在线| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点 | 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女 | 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av | 久久香蕉激情| 国产成人av教育| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 两个人看的免费小视频| 国产1区2区3区精品| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 亚洲 欧美 日韩 在线 免费| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 久久中文看片网| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | 男女午夜视频在线观看| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 中文欧美无线码| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 自线自在国产av| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 色综合站精品国产| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 国产精品永久免费网站| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 手机成人av网站| ponron亚洲| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片 | 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看 | av在线天堂中文字幕 | 极品人妻少妇av视频| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 在线国产一区二区在线| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 天堂√8在线中文| 在线看a的网站| 男人操女人黄网站| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| av国产精品久久久久影院| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 午夜福利欧美成人| 亚洲狠狠婷婷综合久久图片| 久久九九热精品免费| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 精品国产国语对白av| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 黄色 视频免费看| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点 | 亚洲 国产 在线| 一区福利在线观看| 日韩视频一区二区在线观看| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 午夜福利在线免费观看网站| 久久国产精品影院| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 日韩免费av在线播放| 欧美黑人精品巨大| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 在线播放国产精品三级| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 午夜免费鲁丝| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 嫩草影院精品99| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 午夜久久久在线观看| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 丰满的人妻完整版| 久久亚洲真实| 老司机福利观看| 色播在线永久视频| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 1024香蕉在线观看| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 国产成人av教育| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 一a级毛片在线观看| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 免费看a级黄色片| 成人免费观看视频高清| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 日本 av在线| 日本a在线网址| 免费不卡黄色视频| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站 | 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区 | 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 成年版毛片免费区| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 9191精品国产免费久久| 日本五十路高清| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 国产色视频综合| 国产高清videossex| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影 | 黄色视频不卡| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 国产激情欧美一区二区| 久久婷婷成人综合色麻豆| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 一进一出抽搐动态| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 50天的宝宝边吃奶边哭怎么回事| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 色综合婷婷激情| 美女大奶头视频| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 久久性视频一级片| 50天的宝宝边吃奶边哭怎么回事| 18禁观看日本| 日韩视频一区二区在线观看| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 天堂√8在线中文| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器 | 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 色在线成人网| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 男女高潮啪啪啪动态图| 老司机靠b影院| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 日韩欧美三级三区| 久久香蕉激情| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| 午夜福利欧美成人| 日韩高清综合在线| 怎么达到女性高潮| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 午夜久久久在线观看| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 丰满的人妻完整版| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 精品一区二区三卡| 青草久久国产| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 亚洲片人在线观看| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 精品一区二区三卡| 欧美色视频一区免费| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | 成人三级黄色视频| 91av网站免费观看| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 天天添夜夜摸| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 午夜激情av网站| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 操美女的视频在线观看| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 青草久久国产| 午夜日韩欧美国产| avwww免费| 国产色视频综合| 色综合婷婷激情| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 国产精品 国内视频| 久久人妻av系列| 午夜视频精品福利| 成在线人永久免费视频| www.精华液| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 欧美日韩精品网址| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| www日本在线高清视频| 免费看a级黄色片| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出 | 婷婷丁香在线五月| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 岛国视频午夜一区免费看| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片 | 久久亚洲精品不卡| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产 | 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| www.999成人在线观看| 成人国语在线视频| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 成人三级黄色视频| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 91老司机精品| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 热99re8久久精品国产| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 久久伊人香网站| 国产三级在线视频| 亚洲av成人av| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 亚洲精品一二三| 一级片'在线观看视频| 国产一区二区三区视频了| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕| 国产麻豆69| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 在线观看一区二区三区| 午夜老司机福利片| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 国产精品成人在线| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色 | 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 99re在线观看精品视频| 久久这里只有精品19| 不卡一级毛片| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看 | 午夜福利在线观看吧| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 国产激情欧美一区二区| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频 | 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 亚洲国产看品久久| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 精品电影一区二区在线| 香蕉国产在线看| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 亚洲成人久久性| 国产色视频综合| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 看片在线看免费视频| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 制服诱惑二区| 国产精品免费视频内射| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 午夜视频精品福利| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 国产成人精品无人区| 香蕉久久夜色| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费 | 91精品三级在线观看| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 99久久国产精品久久久| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 麻豆av在线久日| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 亚洲av熟女| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点 | 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 日日夜夜操网爽| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 成年人免费黄色播放视频| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 99国产精品99久久久久| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 午夜91福利影院| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 无限看片的www在线观看| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 国产成人影院久久av| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 中文欧美无线码| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 一进一出抽搐动态| 国产精品影院久久| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器 | 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 免费观看精品视频网站| 国产不卡一卡二| 极品人妻少妇av视频| 国产野战对白在线观看| 成人三级做爰电影| 另类亚洲欧美激情| xxx96com| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 99国产精品99久久久久| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 国产亚洲精品久久久久5区| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 视频区图区小说| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片 | 久久精品成人免费网站|