Regulating Speech Online - Revision history

Castille: /* Class Discussion */

2014-02-22T22:05:08Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:05, 22 February 2014
Line 142:		Line 142:

	:Rosen's article sheds a lot of light on what has become very important content control force in digitally-mediated discussions. For me, the most interesting and troubling aspect of this is the time they take to decide these things. Rosen claims the content review groups at Facebook have on average 20 seconds to evaluate a claim before acting upon it. It is nearly impossible to internalize in such a short period of time the complicated elements Susan Benesch flags to separate the dangerous from the tasteless but far less dangerous - the context, the speaker, the audience, etc. How can they be expected to do in 20 seconds what scholars and courts spend years (and many trees of paper) contemplating in other contexts? (Oh, and to your next post - book recommendations are always welcome!) [[User:Andy\|Andy]] 21:40, 17 February 2014 (EST)		:Rosen's article sheds a lot of light on what has become very important content control force in digitally-mediated discussions. For me, the most interesting and troubling aspect of this is the time they take to decide these things. Rosen claims the content review groups at Facebook have on average 20 seconds to evaluate a claim before acting upon it. It is nearly impossible to internalize in such a short period of time the complicated elements Susan Benesch flags to separate the dangerous from the tasteless but far less dangerous - the context, the speaker, the audience, etc. How can they be expected to do in 20 seconds what scholars and courts spend years (and many trees of paper) contemplating in other contexts? (Oh, and to your next post - book recommendations are always welcome!) [[User:Andy\|Andy]] 21:40, 17 February 2014 (EST)

			:: Yeah, and it also seems unlikely that they have an entire team of lawyers (or other equally "qualified" professionals) working on every single claim. I wonder-- and perhaps I just missed it, if it's mentioned-- whether they favor a more lenient or strict position, on average. It seems "easier"/"safer" to delete anything that becomes an issue and deal with it again if and only if the deletion is contested. I know I've had several friends' profiles, including all of their photos, comments, etc. over the years, deleted and content removed without so much as a notice.

AmyAnn0644: /* Class Discussion */

2014-02-20T18:56:45Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:56, 20 February 2014
Line 275:		Line 275:
	While self-policing within a given online community is an ideal way of regulating instances of hate speech, this clearly does not always happen. Partly because citizens may not know how to police such behavior and also because the internet is such a vast sphere that human regulation in its fullest extent has become somewhat unrealistic even if every cyber-goer were moral and acted upon such values. The greatest concern is how many crimes (particularly school shootings) could have been prevented if officials would or could do more to act on the "warning signs" often present on a teenager's social media sites.		While self-policing within a given online community is an ideal way of regulating instances of hate speech, this clearly does not always happen. Partly because citizens may not know how to police such behavior and also because the internet is such a vast sphere that human regulation in its fullest extent has become somewhat unrealistic even if every cyber-goer were moral and acted upon such values. The greatest concern is how many crimes (particularly school shootings) could have been prevented if officials would or could do more to act on the "warning signs" often present on a teenager's social media sites.

	A recent article below posted by Staten Island discusses how lack of proactive policy has obstructed investigations. For example, if a student is reported for violent content posted online, it is solely up to the discretion of the school Principal to take action or dismiss the behavior as child's play; this is true even if an explicit threat is made. In one instance a threat was posted and the Principal chose to ignore it because he/she did not know what could be done. This is an issue because Principal~~'s are~~ not trained in law enforcement and making these types of decisions ~~come~~ with an enormous amount of responsibility ~~if a wrong decision is made~~. In the case of the article below, law enforcement stepped in and ~~interrogated~~ the ~~subject, his family, etc. and determined it~~ was nothing more than a hoax. Determining this, however, would be extremely difficult for a Principal without the tools and training of a law enforcement officer.		A recent article below posted by Staten Island discusses how lack of proactive policy has obstructed investigations. For example, if a student is reported for violent content posted online, it is solely up to the discretion of the school Principal to take action or dismiss the behavior as child's play; this is true even if an explicit threat is made. In one instance a threat was posted and the Principal chose to ignore it because he/she did not know what could be done. This is an issue because a Principal is not formally trained in law enforcement and making these types of decisions comes with an enormous amount of responsibility. In the case of the article below, law enforcement stepped in and conducted an interrogation determining that the posting was nothing more than a hoax. Determining this, however, would be extremely difficult for a Principal without the tools and training of a law enforcement officer.

	http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/02/post_716.html		http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/02/post_716.html

AmyAnn0644: /* Class Discussion */

2014-02-20T18:53:09Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:53, 20 February 2014
Line 278:		Line 278:

	http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/02/post_716.html		http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/02/post_716.html

			--[[User:AmyAnn0644\|AmyAnn0644]] 13:53, 20 February 2014 (EST)

AmyAnn0644: /* Class Discussion */

2014-02-20T18:50:32Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:50, 20 February 2014
Line 271:		Line 271:
	Following up on Andy and Castille's comments regarding content review and concern over the speed of content removal, I found Rachel Whetstone's entry about Google's policy regarding free expression and regulating speech particularly interesting. Whetstone emphasizes the importance of community, and the relative speed and accuracy of hate speech/ inappropriate content regulation by the millions of google users who self-police their given online communities. She acknowledges the potentially problematic dynamic of subjective judgment of what is deemed inappropriate, but I strongly agree that the majority of users- especially those who actively and regularly engage in any number of online communities- will agree about what is acceptable and what is offensive. Castille brought up concerns over cyber bullying and parental supervision/ intervention-- I would hope that the majority of parents would have similar responses to what is deemed unacceptable content when they encounter it. Though the ability to consider, deliberate and process each case of potential content regulation or removal is indeed limited when the average content review period on platforms such as Facebook is 20 seconds (referenced by Andy), I still would trust the ability of a community of regularly engaged and informed reviewers to regulate appropriate content.		Following up on Andy and Castille's comments regarding content review and concern over the speed of content removal, I found Rachel Whetstone's entry about Google's policy regarding free expression and regulating speech particularly interesting. Whetstone emphasizes the importance of community, and the relative speed and accuracy of hate speech/ inappropriate content regulation by the millions of google users who self-police their given online communities. She acknowledges the potentially problematic dynamic of subjective judgment of what is deemed inappropriate, but I strongly agree that the majority of users- especially those who actively and regularly engage in any number of online communities- will agree about what is acceptable and what is offensive. Castille brought up concerns over cyber bullying and parental supervision/ intervention-- I would hope that the majority of parents would have similar responses to what is deemed unacceptable content when they encounter it. Though the ability to consider, deliberate and process each case of potential content regulation or removal is indeed limited when the average content review period on platforms such as Facebook is 20 seconds (referenced by Andy), I still would trust the ability of a community of regularly engaged and informed reviewers to regulate appropriate content.
	[[User:akk22\|akk22]] 11:50, 18 February 2014 (EST)		[[User:akk22\|akk22]] 11:50, 18 February 2014 (EST)


			While self-policing within a given online community is an ideal way of regulating instances of hate speech, this clearly does not always happen. Partly because citizens may not know how to police such behavior and also because the internet is such a vast sphere that human regulation in its fullest extent has become somewhat unrealistic even if every cyber-goer were moral and acted upon such values. The greatest concern is how many crimes (particularly school shootings) could have been prevented if officials would or could do more to act on the "warning signs" often present on a teenager's social media sites.

			A recent article below posted by Staten Island discusses how lack of proactive policy has obstructed investigations. For example, if a student is reported for violent content posted online, it is solely up to the discretion of the school Principal to take action or dismiss the behavior as child's play; this is true even if an explicit threat is made. In one instance a threat was posted and the Principal chose to ignore it because he/she did not know what could be done. This is an issue because Principal's are not trained in law enforcement and making these types of decisions come with an enormous amount of responsibility if a wrong decision is made. In the case of the article below, law enforcement stepped in and interrogated the subject, his family, etc. and determined it was nothing more than a hoax. Determining this, however, would be extremely difficult for a Principal without the tools and training of a law enforcement officer.

			http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/02/post_716.html

Ryan: /* Links from Class Discussion */

2014-02-19T20:56:15Z

Links from Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:56, 19 February 2014
Line 103:		Line 103:
	David Ardia did a pretty thorough review of where we are with CDA 230, about 10-15 years later: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625820		David Ardia did a pretty thorough review of where we are with CDA 230, about 10-15 years later: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625820

	~~The file Jeff~~'s ~~mentioning is embedded here~~: http://gawker.com/5885714/inside-facebooks-outsourced-anti+porn-and-gore-brigade-where-camel-toes-are-more-offensive-than-crushed-heads		Facebook's content review guidelines: http://gawker.com/5885714/inside-facebooks-outsourced-anti+porn-and-gore-brigade-where-camel-toes-are-more-offensive-than-crushed-heads

	Facebook terms of service: https://www.facebook.com/terms.php		Facebook terms of service: https://www.facebook.com/terms.php

Ryan: /* Links from Class Discussion */

2014-02-19T20:55:36Z

Links from Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:55, 19 February 2014
Line 65:		Line 65:
	==Links from Class Discussion==		==Links from Class Discussion==

			Jeff Hermes' bio: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jhermes

			"Incorporation" of the First Amendment against the states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

			Jacobellis v. Ohio ("I know it when I see it"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio

			Miller v. California (True obscenity standard): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

			Hustler v. Falwell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

			Analysis of Federal Restricted Buildings Act: http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/restricted.asp

			NYT v. Sullivan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

			Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc.

			US v. Alvarez: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez

			Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

			Recent Microsoft issues with search censorship: http://www.herdict.org/blog/2014/02/13/bing-needs-to-explain-its-search-algorithms/

			Duties of Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States#Duties

			Litigation involving Wikimedia Foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litigation_involving_the_Wikimedia_Foundation

			John Seigenthaler Wikipedia Biography Controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Seigenthaler_biography_incident

			Background on the Innocence of Muslims video: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_muslims

			Example of effect of YouTube videos on banks: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/09/us_banks_ddos_blamed_on_iran

			CDA Section 230: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

			Reno v. ACLU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union

			David Ardia did a pretty thorough review of where we are with CDA 230, about 10-15 years later: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625820

			The file Jeff's mentioning is embedded here: http://gawker.com/5885714/inside-facebooks-outsourced-anti+porn-and-gore-brigade-where-camel-toes-are-more-offensive-than-crushed-heads

			Facebook terms of service: https://www.facebook.com/terms.php

			Twitter ToS: https://twitter.com/tos

			State Attorneys General Letter: https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/cda-ag-letter.pdf

	==Class Discussion==		==Class Discussion==

Ryan at 20:40, 19 February 2014

2014-02-19T20:40:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:40, 19 February 2014
Line 17:		Line 17:
	The first half of assignment 2 (posting your prospectus) is due before class ''next week (Feb. 25th)''. Information on the assignment can be found [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus\|here]].		The first half of assignment 2 (posting your prospectus) is due before class ''next week (Feb. 25th)''. Information on the assignment can be found [[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus\|here]].

			<onlyinclude>
	== Readings ==		== Readings ==
	~~<onlyinclude>~~
	; Private and public control of speech online		; Private and public control of speech online

Ryan at 20:40, 19 February 2014

2014-02-19T20:40:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:40, 19 February 2014
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Joining us this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jhermes Jeff Hermes], Director of the [http://www.dmlp.org/ Digital Media Law Project].		Joining us this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jhermes Jeff Hermes], Director of the [http://www.dmlp.org/ Digital Media Law Project].

	~~<onlyinclude>~~

	== Assignments ==		== Assignments ==
Line 18:		Line 18:

	== Readings ==		== Readings ==
			<onlyinclude>
	; Private and public control of speech online		; Private and public control of speech online

Line 61:		Line 61:
	* [http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2012/structural-weakness-internet-speech Andy Sellars, The Structural Weakness of Internet Speech]		* [http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2012/structural-weakness-internet-speech Andy Sellars, The Structural Weakness of Internet Speech]

			</onlyinclude>
	==Links from Class Discussion==		==Links from Class Discussion==


	~~</onlyinclude>~~

	==Class Discussion==		==Class Discussion==

AmyAnn0644: /* Class Discussion */

2014-02-19T13:33:20Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:33, 19 February 2014
Line 218:		Line 218:

	Ichua - I could not agree more! It is hard enough for educated adults to filter through the propaganda spewed on the web; I can only imagine how a child would struggle with this. Even the most reputable websites have had instances where misinformation or biased information has been reported. Educating our youth on cyber material will make or break our country (and world's) future both within the cyber world and the real world.		Ichua - I could not agree more! It is hard enough for educated adults to filter through the propaganda spewed on the web; I can only imagine how a child would struggle with this. Even the most reputable websites have had instances where misinformation or biased information has been reported. Educating our youth on cyber material will make or break our country (and world's) future both within the cyber world and the real world.

			--[[User:AmyAnn0644\|AmyAnn0644]] 08:33, 19 February 2014 (EST)

	----		----

AmyAnn0644: /* Class Discussion */

2014-02-19T13:32:23Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:32, 19 February 2014
Line 217:		Line 217:
	[[User:Ichua\|Ichua]] 11:53, 18 February 2014 (EST)		[[User:Ichua\|Ichua]] 11:53, 18 February 2014 (EST)

			Ichua - I could not agree more! It is hard enough for educated adults to filter through the propaganda spewed on the web; I can only imagine how a child would struggle with this. Even the most reputable websites have had instances where misinformation or biased information has been reported. Educating our youth on cyber material will make or break our country (and world's) future both within the cyber world and the real world.

	----		----