One note of optimism may be the fact that there is in 19.8 a consideration specifically of the public interest related to privacy, but I take your point on the history of it.
When we talk about safe harbour—and you have previously written critically of the copyright extension, but in support of embracing safe harbour rules—I generally side with you in that we shouldn't be talking about imposing liability for content that isn't illegal in the first place.
My worry when I read 19.17, I think it is.... Perhaps I can read it out a little bit here:
...no Party shall adopt or maintain measures that treat a supplier or user of an interactive computer service as an information content provider in determining liability for harms...except to the extent the supplier... has, in whole or in part, created, or developed the information.
I don't expect Facebook, Google or whatever online company is hosting third-party content, to be developing and creating content. Otherwise, of course, liability would attach. My concern is with the promotion of content.
I can list off any number of illegal kinds of content—defamation, harassment, hate speech, disinformation in the context of elections, counterfeit goods that are advertised for sale. Shouldn't there be some liability? Is the liability limited to the criminal law, and would that be the way around the safe harbour provision?