![]() ![]() The goal should be to arrange content moderation and algorithmic recommendation to give users what they want, to make their experiences “as rich and pleasant as possible.” The new Twitter under Musk, he says, must censor “all content prohibited by law in all jurisdictions that prohibit it.” For content moderation and algorithmic recommendation of legal speech, Yandex urges Musk to seek to identify hate speech and other speech users might not want to see and then give users the tools to block it if they want. Influential neo-right blogger Curtis Yandex has urged Musk to adopt a user curation approach to content moderation. Musk could turn the job over to Twitter users or third parties. The fact that someone has to moderate content on Twitter, however, does not mean that Twitter has to do it. sums up the current situation that “Twitter has crossed the river of no return in “moderating” the content that appears on its service-it can’t allow untrammeled free expression.” But Wall Street Journal opinion columnist Holman W. He appears to want to allow all legal speech on the platform and this has prompted concerns that he will weaken content moderation in the name of free speech. I don’t care about the economics at all.” My strong intuitive sense is that having a public platform that is maximally trusted and broadly inclusive is extremely important to the future of civilization. In an onstage interview at the TED2022 conference, Musk said, “this isn’t a way to make money. So, what is Musk likely to do with Twitter? He presents himself as a philanthropic custodian of a public resource. They still allow him to let his system fill up with noxious material if he wants. But they will not dictate Elon Musk’s approach to content moderation on Twitter. It would be desirable to adopt significant elements of them here in the U.S. These new laws will impose the vital public protection of transparency. Musk will have to abide by the new EU and UK laws that relate to harmful but legal speech that will mean more risk assessments, transparency reports, audits, access to data for researchers, publication of content moderation standards, and due process requirements. The UK and the EU create new liability regimes for illegal speech in their pending legislation, and Musk has promised to comply with these legal requirements.īut most of the hate speech, misinformation, and racist invective on social media are legal both here in the U.S. ![]() Of course, certain speech is unlawful, and increasingly social media companies will be expected to keep their systems free of illegal material. No liberal democracy will mandate what owners can do or what their editorial policy should be. Content moderation is their editorial policy, and it is determined by their owners. Social media is media, and the same ownership prerogatives apply. When NBC, CNN, ABC, or the New York Post change owners, as they have frequently in the past, their new owners dictate operational rules and editorial policy. ![]() The owners of media outlets determine the political line of the news stories and commentary they distribute. Twitter is this possible? Can it really be true that the content moderation policies of such a powerful forum for public discourse should depend on the whims of its new billionaire owner? Evan Greer, a political activist with Fight for the Future, speaks for a lot of us when she says, “If we want to protect free speech online, then we can’t live in a world where the richest person on Earth can just purchase a platform that millions of people depend on and then change the rules to his liking.”īut this is the way television, newspapers, and radio function in liberal democracies. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |