content moderation

The board made critical recommendations: that Facebook reckon with its own role in amplifying content and overhaul its approach to high-reach accounts.

The company’s inability to enact a clear, consistent, transparent content-moderation policy may lead the board to overturn the decision to bar Trump.

Conspiracy theorists and disinformation remain in the world and online. At the end of the day, solving that problem will require more than just a technical solution.

De-platforming is a window on the unequally distributed power and embedded assumptions that determine what content gets to stay online.

To solve the numerous challenges linked to content moderation, the spread of incitement to violence, censorship etc., we certainly need standards based on human rights law, but…

The panel might be ready to start work in October, and it is not too late for it to weigh in on this. The global information environment demands it.

The solution is not to give government or platforms more power to make opaque, arbitrary decisions on content, but to help users protect themselves.

Even if it doesn't lead to action, the threat of regulatory pressure aims to bully social media companies into continuing their hands-off approach to Trump.

That depends on how it will weigh Facebook’s community standards and values against global norms in its content-moderation decisions.

This board, for content moderation, may be part of the answer to problems of online speech and censorship. But U.N. Special Rapporteur David Kaye explains that it is only one part.

It's not a "Supreme Court," as Mark Zuckerberg suggested, but it might be the most interesting development in social media self-regulation in a decade.

How might we move toward accountability in the face of irreconcilable clashes between Rights-era and Public Health-era values, particularly given the serious practical and civil…