freedom of speech

Facebook has been criticized for content it allows. But we should be equally skeptical of what it takes down, and its claimed legal reasoning for removals.

The company has responded to criticism with clarifications and revisions, but the rules require a fundamental rethink.

A deeper dive shows the company is not ready to engage with the board's most far-reaching recommendations,

The case of Roman Protasevich is nothing more than a step – albeit unprecedented and shocking – in the incremental use by States, across the globe, of legislation to counter…

The future of Facebook's treatment of political leaders across the world

Facebook has been moderating the Myanmar military's Facebook access for years. The military still used the platform to effectuate its coup. What can we learn from this failure…

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

The Oversight Board must grapple with algorithmic decision-making and whether politicians' speech ought to be governed by special rules, with implications for political speech…

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

Since taking power, Myanmar's military has limited access to social media, and at times cut internet service overall. What can tech companies do to resist?

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

The First Amendment protects abstract appeals for illegal actions. But there can and should be criminal liability for speech that incites the likely and imminent risk of violence.…