Latest in Content Moderation
Israel’s High Court found that takedown requests directed from state prosecutors to online platforms constitute government acts, but the court held that no specific statutory authorization is required. That decision is significant yet deeply flawed.
The justice’s speculations on the possibilities for regulating social media platforms are already changing the tone of the debate on the political right—but he makes a weak argument.
The Supreme Court vacates the holding that the replies to Trump’s Twitter account are a public forum, and Justice Thomas shares his thoughts on platform regulation.
Republican Governor Ron DeSantis has promised that Florida will soon enact “the most ambitious reforms yet proposed” for “holding ‘Big Tech’ accountable.” There’s just one problem: It’s unconstitutional.
The Facebook Oversight Board should be mindful that Facebook is not a government—and that the platform’s decisions denying active accounts or taking down posts pose no threat of loss of liberty to any person.
Facebook’s policies on health misinformation stretch across blog posts, different sections within the Community Standards, and now in its Help Center. This must change.
Early public comments to the Facebook Oversight Board show a surprising consensus that banning the former president was the right move.
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 a new Wall Street Journal op-ed, Philip Hamburger argues that “the government, in working through private companies, is abridging the freedom of speech.” This argument doesn’t hold water.
In its first five decisions, four of which overturn Facebook content moderation decisions, the board set an ambitious agenda for itself and Facebook.