Computers, Privacy & the Constitution

View   r4  >  r3  ...
AndrewBrickfieldFirstPaper 4 - 29 Apr 2018 - Main.AndrewBrickfield
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="FirstPaper"
Line: 37 to 37
 
Added:
>
>

Comments

 It's interesting that a few of us wrote about the same problem: Facebook as the man in the middle for news. But I think we all (perhaps due to space constraint) ran into some trouble with the solution portion. If we think of the problem as a disease, we addressed (1) the symptoms and (2) the pathology/cause, but failed to prescribe a (3) treatment. You touched on it briefly in your last paragraph, but I thought we all could use this space to develop and expand on some of those treatment options. My initial thoughts: perhaps (1) broadening the state action doctrine—some sort of viewpoint discrimination-based solution (this would require FB be neutral in application of its internal removal guidelines, etc.) or; (2) bringing back some version of the fairness doctrine for social media platforms—limited to those who do not ostensibly claim to support a certain viewpoint over another and instead pretend to be neutral, or; (3) (and to me, the most likely solution) statutorily implementing forms of transparency reporting requirements. For example, 'FB must: report how many user-initiated content flags they receive, how many posts/comments they actually remove in response, the criteria used in the removal process, and provide a random sample of 1000 or so removals and their specific justifications’ for the public to examine and assess any bias.

Revision 4r4 - 29 Apr 2018 - 20:03:58 - AndrewBrickfield
Revision 3r3 - 29 Apr 2018 - 16:36:29 - AndrewBrickfield
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM