Platforms

Today, transparency reporting on issues such as government requests for user data is considered an industry-wide best practice for technology and telecommunications companies. Over the past few years, internet platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube have also begun publishing transparency reports that outline how they are enforcing their own content policies and rules. This reporting has been expanded to include a number of metrics and categories of content that are unique to these types of platforms.

Facebook took down campaign posts and ads for President Donald Trump, citing violations of the company’s policy against what it called “organized hate,” as the social-media company grapples with what content to allow on its platforms. The ads, featuring a downward-pointing triangle, targeted antifa, describing the movement as “Dangerous MOBS of far-left groups.” The ads asked Trump supporters to back President Trump’s calls to designate antifa as a terrorist organization.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) encouraged companies that advertise on social media to use their “tremendous leverage” to push platforms to crack down on disinformation. “Know your power,” Speaker Pelosi said. “Advertisers are in a position, they have power to discourage platforms from amplifying dangerous and even life-threatening disinformation. Some major advertisers and some not so major have begun to express objections to platform policies that promote voter fraud and violence ...

Contact tracing done wrong threatens privacy and invites mission creep into adjacent fields, including policing. Government actors might (and do) distort and corrupt public-health messaging to serve their own interests. Automated policing and content control raise the prospect of a slide into authoritarianism. But most critics have focused narrowly on classic privacy concerns about data leakage and mission creep—especially the risk of improper government access to and use of sensitive data.

The Department of Justice released a set of reform proposals to update the outdated immunity for online platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.  Responding to bipartisan concerns about the scope of 230 immunity, the department identified a set of concrete reform proposals to provide stronger incentives for online platforms to address illicit material on their services while continuing to foster innovation and free speech.

Concerning President Donald Trump's Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship, I first want to talk about process and why the FCC needs to keep it from dragging out. Second, I want to move on to the question of the FCC’s rulemaking authority here. And finally, I want to raise some key questions around the substance of the Executive Order. 1) Given the role Section 230 has played in shaping American life online, we have to get this right. And we need to act quickly. 2) I am skeptical that there’s any role for the FCC here.

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced a bill to empower Americans to sue Big Tech companies who act in bad faith by selectively censoring political speech and hiding content created by their competitors.

Senate Subcommittee on The Constitution Chairman Ted Cruz (R-TX) sent a letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai raising concerns about Google's latest actions to censor political speech with which it disagrees.

As more aspects of our lives increasingly move online, we must contend with operating in a digital public square owned by private entities — one where freedom of expression falls not under the purview of the First Amendment, but under emergent standards being shaped by technology companies. Such challenges have taken on an increased urgency during the COVID-19 pandemic, with Americans turning to social media for interaction and information and finding the platforms awash in false claims and conspiracy theories that threaten health.