The good news is that Facebook is finally taking action against deepfakes. The bad news is that the platform’s new policy does not go far enough.
Latest in Social Media
What the heck is TheSoul Publishing, and how did it get tens of of millions of followers on YouTube and Facebook? And what is it doing with them?
Section 230 deliberately seeks to induce private parties to take action that would violate constitutional rights if governmental actors did it directly.
On Nov. 14 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Eric Meiggs and Declan Harrington were charged with wire fraud, computer fraud and aggravated identity theft, among other charges. The indictment alleges an extensive nationwide scheme to steal victims' social media accounts and cryptocurrency. The full indictment is available here and below.
Jed Rubenfeld is incorrect; the Good Samaritan provision of Section 230 does not turn internet platforms into First Amendment state actors.
The pivotal question, doctrinally, turns out to be what kind of First Amendment forums Google and Facebook operate.
An overview of the research and analysis used by Facebook in developing the company’s new oversight mechanism.
If Congress had done in almost any other setting what it’s done to online speech, the unconstitutionality would have been immediately apparent.
Speaking at Georgetown University on Oct. 17, Mark Zuckerberg said what many did not want to hear: Facebook would not be doing more to restrict “bad” speech.
“My problem isn’t terrorists, it’s the KKK,” a senior social media company executive told us. We’d asked him about the challenges of countering terrorist groups like the Islamic State, only to receive an education about the difficulties of countering nonviolent hate groups. He had a point.