• <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.

    视频中文字幕在线观看| 一区二区三区精品91| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 国产极品天堂在线| 色94色欧美一区二区| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 如何舔出高潮| 一级毛片我不卡| 多毛熟女@视频| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频 | 免费黄色在线免费观看| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 各种免费的搞黄视频| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 免费观看性生交大片5| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 亚洲av男天堂| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 国产成人一区二区在线| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 91精品国产九色| a 毛片基地| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 七月丁香在线播放| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 黄色日韩在线| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 男女国产视频网站| 亚洲国产av新网站| 两个人的视频大全免费| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 乱人伦中国视频| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 日日撸夜夜添| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 看免费成人av毛片| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 久久久久网色| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 中文资源天堂在线| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 一级爰片在线观看| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃 | 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 中文资源天堂在线| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 成年av动漫网址| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 无限看片的www在线观看| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频 | 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 老司机影院毛片| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 久久久欧美国产精品| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| videos熟女内射| 日韩视频在线欧美| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 不卡av一区二区三区| 一级毛片精品| 高清在线国产一区| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 色94色欧美一区二区| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 午夜福利,免费看| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 久久性视频一级片| 性少妇av在线| 久9热在线精品视频| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| avwww免费| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o| 国产在视频线精品| 国产av国产精品国产| 男女国产视频网站| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 黄色 视频免费看| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 99九九在线精品视频| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 91麻豆av在线| 成人国语在线视频| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 男女边摸边吃奶| av网站免费在线观看视频| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 在线天堂中文资源库| www.999成人在线观看| 热99久久久久精品小说推荐| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 国产成人欧美| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 久久久久久亚洲精品国产蜜桃av| 国产成人欧美在线观看 | 久久 成人 亚洲| 脱女人内裤的视频| 中国国产av一级| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面 | 99香蕉大伊视频| 一区二区三区精品91| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 两性夫妻黄色片| 一区在线观看完整版| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 久久久久视频综合| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 热re99久久国产66热| 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久 | 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 成在线人永久免费视频| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 美国免费a级毛片| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 午夜影院在线不卡| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三 | 亚洲精华国产精华精| 两性夫妻黄色片| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 丁香六月欧美| 一本综合久久免费| a级毛片黄视频| 超碰97精品在线观看| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 91精品三级在线观看| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 日韩欧美免费精品| 18在线观看网站| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 老司机影院成人| 婷婷色av中文字幕| tube8黄色片| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 桃花免费在线播放| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区 | 亚洲,欧美精品.| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 亚洲av男天堂| 欧美另类一区| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | 成在线人永久免费视频| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 操出白浆在线播放| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| 国产片内射在线| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看 | 大陆偷拍与自拍| 又大又爽又粗| 99香蕉大伊视频| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 美女福利国产在线| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产 | 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| 桃花免费在线播放| 高清在线国产一区| av免费在线观看网站| videos熟女内射| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 伊人亚洲综合成人网| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 久久热在线av| 国产在视频线精品| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 国产三级黄色录像| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 亚洲国产精品一区三区| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www | 日韩欧美免费精品| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡 | kizo精华| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 国产区一区二久久| 美国免费a级毛片| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 免费观看av网站的网址| 桃花免费在线播放| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区 | 91国产中文字幕| 国产精品免费大片| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 免费不卡黄色视频| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 国产精品免费大片| 超碰成人久久| avwww免费| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 欧美日韩av久久| avwww免费| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 成人三级做爰电影| 丝袜脚勾引网站| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| tocl精华| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| 美国免费a级毛片| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 午夜两性在线视频| 美女午夜性视频免费| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| av线在线观看网站| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 超色免费av| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网 | 亚洲国产av新网站| 天堂8中文在线网| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面 | videos熟女内射| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 男女边摸边吃奶| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 无限看片的www在线观看| 不卡一级毛片| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 精品久久久久久电影网| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影 | 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 在线精品无人区一区二区三| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| av一本久久久久| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 五月天丁香电影| 天天影视国产精品| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 各种免费的搞黄视频| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 99热网站在线观看| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看 | 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 一级片'在线观看视频| av免费在线观看网站| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 国产一区二区三区av在线| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 在线看a的网站| 久久热在线av| 成年av动漫网址| 日韩欧美免费精品| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 视频区图区小说| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 男女午夜视频在线观看| a级毛片在线看网站| 黄片播放在线免费| av天堂在线播放| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 老司机靠b影院| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 久久精品亚洲熟妇少妇任你| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 一级毛片精品| tube8黄色片| 免费看十八禁软件| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| netflix在线观看网站| 欧美成人午夜精品| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 久久久国产一区二区| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯 | 飞空精品影院首页| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 国产精品免费大片| 悠悠久久av| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 超碰97精品在线观看| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频| 99热全是精品| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| av国产精品久久久久影院| 中文字幕制服av| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久 | 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 久久免费观看电影| 日日夜夜操网爽| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| a在线观看视频网站| 99久久综合免费| av欧美777| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www | 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频 | 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 国产精品免费大片| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 国产片内射在线| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 天天操日日干夜夜撸| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 欧美在线黄色| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 午夜福利视频精品| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕| 久久久国产成人免费| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 91成年电影在线观看| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 999久久久国产精品视频| cao死你这个sao货| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 天天影视国产精品| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频 | 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 成人影院久久| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 国产精品成人在线| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 伊人亚洲综合成人网| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 一个人免费看片子| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女 | 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 老熟女久久久| 两性夫妻黄色片| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 黄色a级毛片大全视频| 国产淫语在线视频| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 日本a在线网址| 精品少妇内射三级| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 无限看片的www在线观看| www.av在线官网国产| 欧美精品av麻豆av| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 精品国产一区二区久久| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 成人手机av| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o| 久久免费观看电影| 超碰成人久久| 成在线人永久免费视频| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 在线精品无人区一区二区三| www.精华液| 日本91视频免费播放| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 黄色 视频免费看| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 岛国在线观看网站| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 成年美女黄网站色视频大全免费| 丁香六月欧美| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 日本wwww免费看| 18禁观看日本| 女警被强在线播放| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频 | 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 99热网站在线观看| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 日本wwww免费看| 自线自在国产av| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 久久久精品区二区三区| 又大又爽又粗| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 男女免费视频国产| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 国产精品九九99| 国产av国产精品国产| 十八禁网站免费在线| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频 | 国产欧美日韩一区二区三 | 9热在线视频观看99| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 无限看片的www在线观看| 亚洲九九香蕉| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 中国国产av一级| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 久久影院123| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| kizo精华| av天堂久久9| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| avwww免费| 免费av中文字幕在线| kizo精华| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 国产99久久九九免费精品| 亚洲中文av在线| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 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| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 岛国在线观看网站| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 成人手机av| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 国产免费视频播放在线视频|