Latest in Content Moderation
The surge of global internet regulation to combat terrorism and other harmful digital content continues to pose a risk to the freedom of expression online and the rule of law and leaves unanswered many questions about effectiveness.
Democracies in South Asia, including India, are benefitting from increasingly splintered micro-internets, formulated through regulatory mechanisms purportedly enacted to battle fake news and the spread of sexual abuse imagery.
Prohibiting platforms from self-governing is becoming more widespread. German law provides for a different approach, with clearer rules and more rule of law in content moderation practices.
At what point does informal coercion raise Constitutional questions?
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.