We’re disappointed that Meta is restoring Trump’s accounts, but its new approach to content by public figures in times of civil unrest is an improvement.
Read MoreAs long as Facebook employees are the only ones who can monitor Facebook, we will not understand how toxic content thrives on social-media platforms and how best to diminish the human suffering to which it contributes.
Read MoreJudging posts exclusively by their content is like studying cigarettes to understand their toxicity. It’s one useful form of data, but to understand what smoking can do to people’s lungs, study the lungs, not just the smoke.
Read MoreFacebook was correct to prohibit Donald Trump from posting on Facebook and Instagram, and should make that ban permanent. In the future, when considering whether to take action on content posted by political candidates, office holders, and former office holders, Facebook should test the content’s capacity to lead to real-world violence, by evaluating whether the content has been understood by an account’s followers as incitement, rather than trying to divine the intent of the account holder.
Read MoreTwitter and Facebook have set a precedent in removing Trump from their platforms—but can they apply the same principle globally? Salil Tripathi explores this question, using the dangerous speech framework.
Read MoreThe 2020 U.S. election was like nothing we’d seen before for many reasons, including disinformation, dangerous speech, and unprecedented fears of election-related violence. Now it’s time to start thinking about the future.
Read MorePrivate social media companies regulate much more speech than any government does, and their platforms are being used to bring about serious harm. Yet companies govern largely on their own, and in secret.
To correct this, advocates have proposed that companies follow international human rights law. But for this to work, the law must first be interpreted to clarify how (and whether) each of its provisions are suited to this new purpose.
Read MoreWhile online speech is rarely implicated in initial violent incidents, social media platforms increasingly feature dangerous speech afterward – which increases the risk of additional violence.
Read MoreThis piece by Adriana Stephan of the Stanford Internet Observatory offers a clear side-by-side comparison of online platforms’ hate speech policies and enforcement mechanisms.
Read MoreThis paper presents seven proposals for how internet companies can more effectively address harmful content on their platforms, protect freedom of expression, and provide a better experience for their users.
Read MoreThe new Christchurch Call to Action is largely vague and symbolic, but it may be worthwhile since it prompts internet companies to expand their collaborations against harmful and especially terrorism-promoting content online.
Read MoreFacebook’s Tessa Lyons announced a new policy for content moderation – the company will now remove misinformation which constitutes Dangerous Speech.
Read MoreEven as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was being grilled by U.S. Senators this week, others sought his attention, from countries…
Read MoreThe final report released by the Mechachal project, one of first academic studies to contextually examine how hate speech and Dangerous Speech disseminate in social media by examining thousands of comments made by Ethiopians on Facebook during the country’s general election.
Read MoreThis report examines the content of the official Facebook page dedicated to saving Sgt. Sunil Rathnayake, who was, on the 25th of June 2015, sentenced to death by the Colombo High Court for the massacre of 8 civilians in Mirusuvil in 2000. It examines comments over the course of one month after the verdict, which coincided with the campaign period for Sri Lanka’s 2015 elections. Given that context, this report explores how potent the saving Sunil Facebook page is, firstly as an example of online hate and dangerous speech and secondly, as a catalyst for social mobilization.
Read More