Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with two emergency medicine physicians about state medical boards, which grant physicians the licenses that authorize them to practice medicine, and how they could play a more aggressive role in curbing falsehoods.
Evelyn Douek is an Assistant Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and Senior Research Fellow at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. She holds a doctorate from Harvard Law School on the topic of private and public regulation of online speech. Prior to attending HLS, Evelyn was an Associate (clerk) to the Honourable Chief Justice Susan Kiefel of the High Court of Australia. She received her LL.B. from UNSW Sydney, where she was Executive Editor of the UNSW Law Journal.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
Our analysis shows that Meta’s Oversight Board has missed more than 20 percent of its decision deadlines. Why should we care?
Algorithms! We hear a lot about them. They drive social media platforms and, according to popular understanding, are responsible for a great deal of what’s wrong about the internet today—and maybe the downfall of democracy itself. But … what exactly are algorithms? And, given they’re not going away, what should they be designed to do?
Today was the 30-day deadline for Facebook’s responses to the policy recommendations in the FOB’s decision on the suspension of Trump’s account. The responses are underwhelming.
What do the details of today's decision reveal about Facebook’s rules, and the FOB’s role in reviewing them?
The Oversight Board Moment You Should’ve Been Waiting For: Facebook Responds to the First Set of Decisions
Facebook said it committed to action as a result of nearly two-thirds of the FOB’s recommendations. This is too rosy a picture, but the responses do show promise and the value of a more open dialogue about content moderation.
In its first five decisions, four of which overturn Facebook content moderation decisions, the board set an ambitious agenda for itself and Facebook.