Content Moderation Is Impossible: You Can't Expect Moderators To Understand Satire Or Irony

from the just-doesn't-work-that-way dept

The latest in our never ending series of posts on why content moderation at scale is impossible to do well, involves Twitter now claiming that a tweet from the account @TheTweetOfGod somehow violates its policies:

If you're unfamiliar with that particular Twitter account, it is a popular account that pretends to tweet pithy statements from "God" that attempt (often not very well, in my opinion) to be funny in a sort of ironic, satirical way. I've found it to miss a lot more than it hits, but that's only my personal opinion. Apparently, Twitter's content moderation elves had a problem with the tweet above. And it's not hard to see why. Somewhere Twitter has a set of rules that include that it's a violation of its rules to mock certain classes of people -- and that includes making fun of people for their sexual orientation, which violates Twitter's rules on "hateful conduct." And it's not difficult to see how a random content moderation employee would skim a tweet like the one flagged above, not recognize the context, the fact that it's an attempt at satire, and flag it as a problem.

Thankfully, in this case, Twitter did correct it upon appeal, but it's just another reminder that so many things tend to trip up content moderators -- especially when they have to moderate a huge amount of content -- and satire and irony are categories that frequently trip up such systems.

Filed Under: content moderation, god, irony, satire, tweet of god
Companies: twitter

Court Says Section 230 Shields Twitter From Revenge Porn Bro's Stupid Lawsuit

from the guess-it's-back-to-running-laughable-political-campaigns dept

Former revenge porn extortionist and current pro se litigant, Craig Brittain, is one severely-narrowed complaint away from having his lawsuit against Twitter tossed. Brittain sued Twitter over the deletion of several accounts, including those he had whipped up for his Senate run.

The court's first pass at the lawsuit moved it to California, a venue shift Brittain explicitly agreed to each time he created another alt account. Terms of service say suing Twitter means suing in California, even if you're an Arizonan Senate hopeful with a closet that contains nothing but skeletons.

Contrary to Brittain's fervent and litigious belief, there's nothing illegal about deleting Craig Brittain's multiple Twitter accounts. Brittain's lawsuit tried to make it possible by treating Twitter as both a provider and a publisher, depending of which description worked out better for his arguments. The court decides to let Brittain have it both ways -- and lose both ways. (h/t Adam Steinbaugh)

As a service provider, Twitter cannot be held liable for third party content. It can also remove accounts without losing this immunity. Since this isn't about the removal of content, but rather the removal of accounts, Brittain tried to argue Section 230 immunity can't protect Twitter from this lawsuit because removing accounts (and their content) is an editorial activity. The court points out this has zero effect on Section 230 protections. From the decision [PDF]:

Under the CDA, a publisher’s activity generally “involves reviewing, editing, and deciding whether to publish or to withdraw from publication third-party content.” Id. at 1102. “[R]emoving content is something publishers do, and to impose liability on the basis of such conduct necessarily involves treating the liable party as a publisher of the content it failed to remove.” Id. at 1103. In other words, “any activity that can be boiled down to deciding whether to exclude material that third parties seek to post online is perforce immune under [CDA] section 230.” Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1170–71 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Publisher or provider, it doesn't matter. Suing a social media site for deleting accounts is a non-starter.

The Brittain Accounts qualify as “information provided by another information content provider.” Brittain expressly acknowledges that he, not Twitter, created and operated the accounts See Barnes, 570 F.3d at 1102 & n.6 (“The statute also tells us that this term ‘means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.’”) (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3)). Accordingly, the Court finds that all but Brittain’s antitrust claim are barred by Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA. Because plaintiff cannot cure this defect, the Court DISMISSES these claims with prejudice.

All Brittain can do now is file a complaint limited to the anti-trust violations he alleges. But the court's brief analysis of the single surviving claim suggests this will be a waste of everyone's time. The court says it's unlikely Brittain can even prove standing, since his claim is pretty much limited to him losing followers when his accounts were suspended or deleted. Brittain's lawsuit doesn't actually allege Twitter did anything illegal in terms of competitive practices.

Although Brittain’s complaint does not suggest that plaintiffs could allege an antitrust cause of action, out of an abundance of caution, the Court affords Brittain leave to amend with respect to this claim and DISMISSES Brittain’s antitrust claim without prejudice.

[...]

While the Court can understand the frustration which may occur if a person’s Twitter account is suspended, unless a legal cause of action can be articulated, a lawsuit cannot be sustained. Nor is the person entitled to discovery on the general issues upon which the complaint is based, unless a legal claim can be stated. Here, the complaint is fundamentally flawed.

The court also points out Brittain can't sue on behalf of his Brittain For Senate campaign committee. This committee of one must seek its own legal representation, which cannot be a pro se litigant named Craig Brittain. This seems unlikely to happen, so this additional will be removed from a lawsuit the only plaintiff remaining (Craig Brittain) is destined to lose.

Yeah, it sucks when a platform decides it no longer wants your free business. But it's not illegal, no matter how many of your hastily-erected Senate campaign committee Twitter accounts are removed by a private company.

Filed Under: antitrust, brittain for senate, cda 230, content moderation, craig brittain, section 230
Companies: twitter

Twitter And Liz Mair Explain Why Devin Nunes' Lawsuit Doesn't Belong In Virginia

from the because-it-is dept

As you'll recall, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Snowflake) has sued some online critics and Twitter. While most of the attention has been focused on the satirical "Devin Nunes Cow" Twitter account named in the first lawsuit, he also sued political consultant Liz Mair. The fact that he sued Mair in two separate lawsuits suggested a bit part of his intent with these lawsuits was to stifle her free speech.

Last month, both Mair and Twitter filed to have the lawsuit dismissed (it's not clear if the Cow has filed anything, and because it's in a state court, it's a pain in the ass to get those records). Both filings are worth reading, though both focus on pretty basic procedural arguments for why the case should be tossed. As we noted when the cases were first filed, it seemed fairly obvious that Nunes chose to file them in Virginia state court, rather than California (where he's from and where Twitter is based) to avoid California's strong anti-SLAPP law that would likely leave him on the hook for the defendants' legal fees. Virginia, in contrast, has a terrible anti-SLAPP law, which is missing nearly all of the important procedural elements of a good anti-SLAPP law to protect defendants from being bled dry through legal process.

Mair's filing argues that the case clearly belongs in California, and basically says that the court should toss it and if Nunes really wants to sue, he should be forced to refile in California (which he is unlikely to do):

Under well-settled principles of forum non conveniens, this case belongs in California, not Virginia. The Plaintiff, Devin Nunes, represents a congressional district in California and has no particular connection to Virginia. He lodges most of his claims, and levels most of his factual allegations, against Twitter, a California-based company. The evidence and witnesses necessary to evaluate these allegations are located almost entirely in California, far beyond the scope of this Court's power of compulsory process. Under Virginia choice of law rules, California will govern many or all of Mr. Nunes's claims. Further, the primary injury of which he complains--a more challenging re-election campaign in 2019 for his congressional seat in California--occurred entirely in California and evokes distinctly Californian interests.

While Mair does live in Virginia, the filing notes that it appears she was included in part just to have a thin veneer of an excuse to file the case in Virginia, pointing out that filing in Virginia state court seems to be little more than forum shopping. The filing also directly calls out the anti-SLAPP issue:

We can only assume that Mr. Nunes filed this case in Virginia because of his (mistaken) belief that if he filed in Virginia, its statute limiting strategic lawsuits against public participation (a.k.a. its anti-SLAPP statute)... would apply and the Virginia statute offers less protection to defendants in defamation suits than does the analogous anti-SLAPP statute in California.

Twitter's filing similarly questions the venue choice, making some of the same arguments, but with the added legal heft of Twitter's terms of service requiring any such lawsuit be brought in California.

This lawsuit does not belong in a Virginia court. The sole Plaintiff is Congressman Devin Nunes, a California resident and the representative for California's 22nd Congressional District. He filed this lawsuit over allegedly defamatory Tweets from several Twitter users--including two farcically posing as his "Cow" and his "Mom"--that he says cost him votes in his last election in California and interfered with his official work in Washington, D.C. He asserts claims against Twitter, Inc., a company headquartered in California and incorporated in Delaware, based on actions Twitter allegedly took or failed to take in California or elsewhere but that did not occur in or target Virginia at all. And he has asserted those claims in a Virginia court despite having agreed, as a Twitter user himself, to file any such claims solely in state or federal court in California.

Neither filing at this stage gets to the merits (or total lack thereof) because it's not necessary at this stage of the lawsuit. One hopes that the court makes quick work of this and dismisses the case. Nunes, who has since admitted that he's filed this case to go fishing for journalists' sources, seems unlikely to actually file suit in California and all the case has served to do is elevate the status of the Devin Nunes' Cow account, and demonstrate to the world what incredibly thin skin Devin Nunes has, and his willingness to abuse the legal process to go after people who make fun of him. For someone who once co-sponsored the Discouraging Frivolous Lawsuits Act, it's a pretty bad look.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, defamation, devin nunes, devin nunes cow', jurisdiction, liz mair, slapp, virginia
Companies: twitter

Conservative Bias? Twitter Bans Famous 'Resistance' Heroes

from the less-Krass,-more-class dept

Social media's war on conservatives continues, this time taking out accounts linked to... the so-called #Resistance?

Twitter has permanently banned prominent anti-Trump brothers Brian and Ed Krassenstein, alleging that two of the biggest stars of #Resistance Twitter had broken the site’s rules about operating fake accounts and purchasing fake interactions with their accounts.

“The Twitter Rules apply to everyone,” a Twitter spokesperson said in a statement. “Operating multiple fake accounts and purchasing account interactions are strictly prohibited. Engaging in these behaviors will result in permanent suspension from the service.”

When not fawning over G-men-turned-Resistance heroes like James Comey, they were hammering F5 on Donald Trump's Twitter page. They may not have been the first to respond, but they were some of the accounts that did the most business, racking up retweets and likes with each amateurish counter to Trump's latest announcement, assertion, or declaration of fake news.

Now, there's the question of how much of that Twitter business was legit. The Krassensteins claim nothing about this was inorganic. They deny buying followers or bots to give their accounts more prominence and rack up more internet points.

It could be Twitter is mistaken. Moderation at scale is hard, as has been hammered home by several posts here recently. What Twitter thought it saw happening with the Krassensteins' accounts may have been benign, rather than malignant.

But the Krassensteins' past as grifters may be indicative of current behavior.

Long before they took up the #Resistance mantle, the Krassensteins began hawking dubious investment advice—way back in 2003—on a pair of internet forums, selling ads to online money-making operations that included a number of apparent scams, including some run by people later convicted on charges ranging from fraud to capital murder.

According to prosecutors, the services the Krassensteins promoted on their websites duped thousands of “investors” into funding Ponzi scheme-type scams and even resulted in some downloading a virus that emptied their accounts on an anonymous online-payment platform used by the Krassensteins themselves, before it was shut down as part of a major federal money-laundering investigation.

Whether you view the Krassensteins as opportunists or brave speakers of truth to power, the conclusion here is inescapable: Twitter doesn't just target conservatives for removal. While it appears this moderation happens far more often to conservatives, Hanlon and his razor suggest prominent alt-right accounts are engaging in questionable behavior more frequently than those without this particular slant. A lot has been made of social media's supposedly-leftist stance, but it's just as likely far right grifters like Laura Loomer and Jacob Wohl violated the terms of service repeatedly before being permabanned.

The banning of the Krassenstein brothers won't budge the needle on this debate, though. Both sides have plenty of circumstantial evidence to point to as evidence of social media bias. And Twitter is still routinely suspending accounts that no one believes have violated the Twitter Rules, only to reinstate them after a bit of investigation, suggesting Twitter's moderation efforts are far from perfect and unlikely to ever reach a point that will satisfy its many critics.

Filed Under: brian krassenstein, conservative bias, content moderation, ed krassenstein, fake accounts, gaming, krassenstein brothers, resistance
Companies: twitter

Several Pro And College Sports Teams Suspended From Twitter Over Mystery DMCA Notices

from the overkill dept

We've had many long discussions here, and have replicated those discussions through more official channels, as to how there are severe problems with the DMCA when it comes to its collision with free speech. One of the core issues is the way the DMCA sets up a system in which service providers feel forced to proactively take down the speech of others based on accusation in the form of a DMCA notice, rather than this working the way it does in nearly every other aspect of American law in which an accusation does not result in a penalty. And penalty truly is the right word, as the American system recognizes that speech is among the most fundamental of freedoms. And, yet, when service providers like Twitter get sent DMCA notices over copyright claims, they are heavily incentivized to take down the content and take action against the account holder -- or face potentially massive liability.

Such as the Twitter account for the Houston Rockets, which found itself suspended over a series of DMCA notices for old tweets that apparently contained some unlicensed music. The Rockets also weren't alone.

On Monday, the Houston Rockets Twitter account found itself among a handful of official sports team accounts, most of which were college team Twitters. The accounts were temporarily shut down due to DMCA complaints against them for the use of copyrighted music without obtaining those rights. The Rockets were joined by Auburn football, Rutgers football, Iowa State football, and Iowa football and gymnastics as prominent official accounts to be shut down either this weekend or on Monday.

“Our Twitter account has been temporarily suspended due to a few prior social media posts with copyrighted music,” the Rockets said in a statement. “We are working to correct the issue now.”

To my immense frustration, nobody appears to have any details as to what the tweets in question were, what music they contained, or who issued the DMCA notices. That is, frankly, fairly strange. It's also worth noting that the Rockets at one point had something of a rogue managing their Twitter account, and even fired that individual for behavior unrelated to copyright.

Still, it's instructive to witness what happened here. Twitter gets DMCA notices claiming infringement on the part of a rather marquis account for the Houston Rockets, does whatever review of the tweets in question it does, and then shuts down the account, ostensibly over the volume of tweets contained in the DMCA notice. In case it isn't obvious: that's crazy. Think of all the speech that got shut down that wasn't infringing when that occurred. And, yes, you might not be terribly concerned with the speech emanating from the account of an NBA team, but its more than 2 million followers did.

And it's also terribly frustrating that this system is set up in a way that shrouds all of this from the public, as though a matter of public speech should be treated like some kind of mystery of national security proportions. The public has an interest in the deletion or suspension of speech, and an interest in the fact that the DMCA is written in a way, and enforced in a way, that not only encourages service providers to take this proactive heavy-handed action, but also leaves those issuing DMCA notices when they shouldn't without punishment.

Today that was a bunch of sport team accounts. Tomorrow it could be speech you might care about.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, dmca, safe harbors, takedowns, tweets
Companies: houston rockets, twitter

Forget 'Breaking Up' Internet Companies, Senator Josh Hawley Says They Should All Die Because They're Too Popular

from the say-what-now? dept

We've had our issues with politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren whose plans to "break up" big internet companies don't seem to make much sense, but it appears that Senator Josh Hawley has decided to take things to another level of insanity altogether. In an op-ed for USA Today, Hawley makes the argument that Facebook, Instagram and Twitter should all die. And while there are plenty of people who appear to support a dead Facebook in response to that company's long history of sketchy practices, that's not really the reason Hawley wants them dead.

He wants them dead because they're too popular. Hawley cherry picks some evidence to suggest that using social media is bad for our health.

And in order to guarantee an audience big enough to make their ads profitable, big tech has developed a business model designed to do one thing above all: addict.

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram — they devote massive amounts of money and the best years of some of the nation’s brightest minds to developing new schemes to hijack their users’ neural circuitry. That’s because social media only works — to make money, anyway — if it consumes users’ time and attention, day after day. It needs to replace the various activities we enjoyed and did perfectly well before social media existed.

This hearkens back to nearly every other overblown, ridiculous moral panic of yesteryear. Television, radio, video games, novels, comic books, dungeons and dragons, pinball, rock and roll. They've all received this nutty treatment. Even chess.

"A pernicious excitement to learn and play chess has spread all over the country, and numerous clubs for practicing this game have been formed in cities and villages. Why should we regret this? It may be asked. We answer, chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while it affords no benefit whatever to the body. Chess has acquired a high reputation as being a means to discipline the mind, but persons engaged in sedentary occupations should never practice this cheerless game; they require out-door exercises--not this sort of mental gladiatorship."

Or, remember the report from 1909 by the "NY Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children"

This new form of entertainment has gone far to blast maidenhood ... Depraved adults with candies and pennies beguile children with the inevitable result. The Society has prosecuted many for leading girls astray through these picture shows, but GOD alone knows how many are leading dissolute lives begun at the 'moving pictures.'

Hawley's piece is one and the same with those previous moral panics. It's kind of amusing for a guy who claims to be a "free market, less government intervention" conservative to now stand up and argue for literally shutting down private enterprises because they're popular, but politics and hypocrisy go hand in hand.

Of course, to make his point, Hawley wants to tie popular social media to another moral panic: "drugs!"

Let’s be clear. This is a digital drug. And the addiction is the point. Addiction is what Mark Zuckerberg is selling.

Like other drugs, this one hurts its users. Attention spans dull. Tempers quicken. Relationships fray.

And those are the benign effects. The Journal of Pediatrics recently noted a surge in attempted suicide: more than double the attempts over the last decade for those under 19, with a tripling among girls and young women 10 to 24. The study’s authors can’t prove social media is to blame, but they strongly suspect it plays a critical role. Congress has a duty to investigate that potential link further.

Meanwhile, as we noted just earlier this week, another comprehensive study did not find any evidence to support the idea that social media is driving depression. But who needs facts when you have a moral panic to sell.

Filed Under: addiction, drugs, health crisis, josh hawley, moral panic, popularity, social media
Companies: facebook, instagram, twitter

Flip Side To 'Stopping' Terrorist Content Online: Facebook Is Deleting Evidence Of War Crimes

from the not-for-the-first-time dept

Just last week, we talked about the new Christchurch Call, and how a bunch of governments and social media companies have made some vague agreements to try to limit and take down "extremist" content. As we pointed out last week, however, there appeared to be little to no exploration by those involved in how such a program might backfire and hide content that is otherwise important.

We've been making this point for many, many years, but every time people freak out about "terrorist content" on social media sites and demand that it gets deleted, what really ends up happening is that evidence of war crimes gets deleted as well. This is not an "accident" or such systems misapplied, this is the simple fact that terrorist propaganda often is important evidence of war crimes. It's things like this that make the idea of the EU's upcoming Terrorist Content Regulation so destructive. You can't demand that terrorist propaganda get taken down without also removing important historical evidence.

It appears that more and more people are finally starting to come to grips with this. The Atlantic recently had an article bemoaning the fact that tech companies are deleting evidence of war crimes, highlighting how such videos have actually been really useful in tracking down terrorists, so long as people can watch them before they get deleted.

In July 2017, a video capturing the execution of 18 people appeared on Facebook. The clip opened with a half-dozen armed men presiding over several rows of detainees. Dressed in bright-orange jumpsuits and black hoods, the captives knelt in the gravel, hands tied behind their back. They never saw what was coming. The gunmen raised their weapons and fired, and the first row of victims crumpled to the earth. The executioners repeated this act four times, following the orders of a confident young man dressed in a black cap and camouflage trousers. If you slowed the video down frame by frame, you could see that his black T-shirt bore the logo of the Al-Saiqa Brigade, an elite unit of the Libyan National Army. That was clue No. 1: This happened in Libya.

Facebook took down the bloody video, whose source has yet to be conclusively determined, shortly after it surfaced. But it existed online long enough for copies to spread to other social-networking sites. Independently, human-rights activists, prosecutors, and other internet users in multiple countries scoured the clip for clues and soon established that the killings had occurred on the outskirts of Benghazi. The ringleader, these investigators concluded, was Mahmoud Mustafa Busayf al-Werfalli, an Al-Saiqa commander. Within a month, the International Criminal Court had charged Werfalli with the murder of 33 people in seven separate incidents—from June 2016 to the July 2017 killings that landed on Facebook. In the ICC arrest warrant, prosecutors relied heavily on digital evidence collected from social-media sites.

The article notes, accurately, that this whole situation is kind of a mess. Governments (and some others in the media and elsewhere) are out there screaming about "terrorist content" online, but pushing companies to take it all down is having the secondary impact of both deleting that evidence from existence and making it that much more difficult to find those terrorists.n And when people raise this concern, they're mostly being ignored:

These concerns are being drowned out by a counterargument, this one from governments, that tech companies should clamp down harder. Authoritarian countries routinely impose social-media blackouts during national crises, as Sri Lanka did after the Easter-morning terror bombings and as Venezuela did during the May 1 uprising. But politicians in healthy democracies are pressing social networks for round-the-clock controls in an effort to protect impressionable minds from violent content that could radicalize them. If these platforms fail to comply, they could face hefty fines and even jail time for their executives.

As the article notes, the companies rush to appease governments demanding such content get taken down has already made the job of those open source researchers much more difficult, and actually helped to hide more terrorists:

Khatib, at the Syrian Archive, said the rise of machine-learning algorithms has made his job far more difficult in recent months. But the push for more filters continues. (As a Brussels-based digital-rights lobbyist in a separate conversation deadpanned, “Filters are the new black, essentially.”) The EU’s online-terrorism bill, Khatib noted, sends the message that sweeping unsavory content under the rug is okay; the social-media platforms will see to it that nobody sees it. He fears the unintended consequences of such a law—that in cracking down on content that’s deemed off-limits in the West, it could have ripple effects that make life even harder for those residing in repressive societies, or worse, in war zones. Any further crackdown on what people can share online, he said, “would definitely be a gift for all authoritarian regimes. It would be a gift for Assad.”

Of course, this is no surprise. We see this in lots of contexts. For example, the focus on going after platforms for sex trafficking with FOSTA stopped the ability of police to help find actual traffickers and victims by hiding that material from view. Indeed, just this week, a guy was sentenced for sex trafficking a teenager, and the way he was found was via Backpage.

This is really the larger point we've been trying to make for the better part of two decades. Focusing on putting liability and control on the intermediary may seem like the "easiest" solution to the fact that there is "bad" content online, but it creates all sorts of downstream effects that we might not like at all. It's reasonable to say that we don't want terrorists to be able to easily recruit new individuals to their cause, but if that makes it harder to stop actual terrorism, shouldn't we be analyzing the trade-offs there? To date, that almost never happens. Instead, we get the form of a moral panic: this content is bad, therefore we need to stop this content, and the only way to do that is to make the platforms liable for it. That assumes -- often incorrectly -- a few different things, including the idea that magically disappearing the content makes the activity behind it go away. Instead, as this article notes, it often does the opposite and makes it more difficult for officials and law enforcement to track down those actually responsible.

It really is a question of whether or not we want to be able to address the underlying problem (those actually doing bad stuff) or sweep it under the rug by deleting it and pretending it doesn't happen. All of the efforts to put the liability on intermediaries really turns into an effort to sweep the bad stuff under the rug, to look the other way and pretend if we can't find it on a major platform, that it's not really happening.

Filed Under: christchurch call, content moderation, evidence, extremist content, terrorist content, war crimes
Companies: facebook, google, twitter

Governments And Internet Companies Agree On Questionable Voluntary Pact On Extremist Content Online

from the well-meaning-but-misguided dept

Yesterday, there was a big process, called the Christchurch Call, in which a bunch of governments and big social media companies basically agreed to take a more proactive role in dealing with terrorist and violent extremist content online. To its credit, the effort did include voices from civil society/public interest groups that raised issues about how these efforts might negatively impact freedom of expression and other human rights issues around the globe. However, it's not clear that the "balance" they came to is a good one.

A free, open and secure internet is a powerful tool to promote connectivity, enhance social inclusiveness and foster economic growth.

The internet is, however, not immune from abuse by terrorist and violent extremist actors. This was tragically highlighted by the terrorist attacks of 15 March 2019 on the Muslim community of Christchurch – terrorist attacks that were designed to go viral.

The dissemination of such content online has adverse impacts on the human rights of the victims, on our collective security and on people all over the world.

The "Call" is not binding on anyone. It's just a set of "voluntary commitments" to try to "address the issue of terrorist and violent extremist content online and to prevent the abuse of the internet...." There are a set of commitments from governments and a separate set from social media companies. On the government side the commitments are:

Counter the drivers of terrorism and violent extremism by strengthening the resilience and inclusiveness of our societies to enable them to resist terrorist and violent extremist ideologies, including through education, building media literacy to help counter distorted terrorist and violent extremist narratives, and the fight against inequality.

Ensure effective enforcement of applicable laws that prohibit the production or dissemination of terrorist and violent extremist content, in a manner consistent with the rule of law and international human rights law, including freedom of expression.

Encourage media outlets to apply ethical standards when depicting terrorist events online, to avoid amplifying terrorist and violent extremist content.

Support frameworks, such as industry standards, to ensure that reporting on terrorist attacks does not amplify terrorist and violent extremist content, without prejudice to responsible coverage of terrorism and violent extremism.

Consider appropriate action to prevent the use of online services to disseminate terrorist and violent extremist content, including through collaborative actions, such as:

• Awareness-raising and capacity-building activities aimed at smaller online service providers;
• Development of industry standards or voluntary frameworks;
• Regulatory or policy measures consistent with a free, open and secure internet and international human rights law.

That mostly seems to stop short of demanding content be taken down, though that last point teeters on the edge. On the social media side, there is the following list of commitments:

Take transparent, specific measures seeking to prevent the upload of terrorist and violent extremist content and to prevent its dissemination on social media and similar content-sharing services, including its immediate and permanent removal, without prejudice to law enforcement and user appeals requirements, in a manner consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms. Cooperative measures to achieve these outcomes may include technology development, the expansion and use of shared databases of hashes and URLs, and effective notice and takedown procedures.

Provide greater transparency in the setting of community standards or terms of service, including by:

• Outlining and publishing the consequences of sharing terrorist and violent extremist content;
• Describing policies and putting in place procedures for detecting and removing terrorist and violent extremist content.

Enforce those community standards or terms of service in a manner consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms, including by:

• Prioritising moderation of terrorist and violent extremist content, however identified;
• Closing accounts where appropriate;
• Providing an efficient complaints and appeals process for those wishing to contest the removal of their content or a decision to decline the upload of their content.

Implement immediate, effective measures to mitigate the specific risk that terrorist and violent extremist content is disseminated through livestreaming, including identification of content for real-time review.

Implement regular and transparent public reporting, in a way that is measurable and supported by clear methodology, on the quantity and nature of terrorist and violent extremist content being detected and removed.

Review the operation of algorithms and other processes that may drive users towards and/or amplify terrorist and violent extremist content to better understand possible intervention points and to implement changes where this occurs. This may include using algorithms and other processes to redirect users from such content or the promotion of credible, positive alternatives or counter-narratives. This may include building appropriate mechanisms for reporting, designed in a multi-stakeholder process and without compromising trade secrets or the effectiveness of service providers’ practices through unnecessary disclosure.

Work together to ensure cross-industry efforts are coordinated and robust, for instance by investing in and expanding the GIFCT, and by sharing knowledge and expertise.

Facebook put up its own list of actions that it's taking in response to this, but as CDT's Emma Llanso points out, it's missing some fairly important stuff about making sure these efforts don't lead to censorship, especially of marginalized groups and individuals:

In response to all of this, the White House refused to join with the other countries who signed on to the voluntary commitments of the Christchurch Call, noting that it had concerns about whether it was appropriate and consistent with the First Amendment. That's absolutely accurate and correct. Even if the effort is voluntary and non-binding, and even if it makes references to protecting freedom of expression, once a government gets involved in advocating for social media companies to take down content, it's crossing a line. The Washington Post quoted law professor James Grimmelmann, who makes this point concisely:

“It’s hard to take seriously this administration’s criticism of extremist content, but it’s probably for the best that the United States didn’t sign,” said James Grimmelmann, a Cornell Tech law professor. “The government should not be in the business of ‘encouraging’ platforms to do more than they legally are required to — or than they could be required to under the First Amendment.”

“The government ought to do its ‘encouraging’ through laws that give platforms and users clear notice of what they’re allowed to do, not through vague exhortations that can easily turn into veiled threats,” Grimmelmann said.

And he's also right that it's difficult to take this administration's position seriously, especially given that the very same day that it refused to join this effort, it was also pushing forward with its sketchy plan to force social media companies to deal with non-existent "conservative bias." So, on the one hand, the White House says it believes in the First Amendment and doesn't want governments to get involved, and at the very same time, it's suggesting that it can pressure social media into acting in a way that it wants. And, of course, this is also the same White House, that has made other efforts to get social media companies to remove content from governments they dislike, such as Iran's.

So, yes, we should be wary of governments telling social media companies what content should and should not be allowed, so it's good that the White House declined to support the Christchurch Call. But it's difficult to believe it was doing so for any particularly principled reasons.

Filed Under: censorship, christchurch, christchurch call, extremism, free speech, human rights, social media, terrorist content, voluntary, white house
Companies: facebook, google, microsoft, twitter, youtube

White House Sets Up Echo Chamber For Complaints About Social Media Bias Against Conservatives

from the complainer-in-chief dept

After months of fact-free complaints about bias against conservatives on social media, the White House has finally decided to engage in a fact-finding mission. And by "fact-finding mission," I mean "knock together a shitty webform to collect complaints." Or build a mailing list for the 2020 election run. Who knows. But here it is in all of its "will this do" glory.

It opens with this statement before it starts harvesting personal info.

SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS should advance FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Yet too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear “violations” of user policies.

No matter your views, if you suspect political bias caused such an action to be taken against you, share your story with President Trump.

From there, the form asks for first name, last name, citizenship, zip code, phone number (optional), and email address. If you're not a US citizen or resident, the White House's form says it can't help you. That's pretty weird considering this form does nothing more than harvest information, most of it personal. If non-US citizens want to share their personal information -- and their stories of social media bias -- with the administration, they should be able to. But that's how the White House set this up: Americans only.

After that, it's time to start detailing the bias. Pick a platform and start bitching. Start by giving the government the link to your social media account, describe the incident, and upload screenshots of the tweet/post removed for violating terms of use being conservative.

You also have the option of being added to the White House's newsletter email list. Then you have prove you're not a robot by typing in the year the Declaration of Independence was signed. Fortunately for the bots, the question and answer never change, so not much a bulwark against exploitation.

Finally, you have to agree to the White House's "user agreement," conveniently located at another site and hidden behind a shortened link.

At the White House's site, you'll learn that complaining about bias via this webform gives the government permission to:

...use, edit, display, publish, broadcast, transmit, post, or otherwise distribute all or part of the Content (including edited, composite, or derivative works made therefrom).

Forever.

The license you grant is irrevocable and valid in perpetuity, throughout the world, and in all forms of media.

And there's nothing you can do if the government decides to alter your tweet and turn it into the centerpiece of its next Congressional hearing.

You waive any right to inspect or approve any Content or edited, composite or derivative works made from Content (including those which may contain your Information) before use. You are not entitled to any prior notice before the U.S. Government uses Content or Information. You are not entitled to any compensation for Content.

And even though the government has taken irrevocable possession of your content, it's still your content where it matters most.

You solely bear all responsibility for all Content.

This isn't about political bias. This is about confirmation bias. The White House has asked people to complain about being blocked or banned. Only those with negative experiences are invited to participate and that slant guarantees a bunch of unreliable narratives. Everything fed into this ad hoc complaint box will be vetted by an administration already convinced the social media deck is stacked against conservatives.

This will allow the administration to cherry-pick what it needs to back up the claims it's been making for months and ignore everything else. It will give the President a stack of printed-out tweets to wave at social media company execs during the next closed door meeting. What it won't produce is much reliable evidence of bias. The lack of reliability won't matter to the administration or the man at the top.

The real question, though, is what the administration plans to do with this info. It seems the ultimate goal is to talk itself into believing the bias problem is bad enough the First Amendment and Section 230 immunity will need to be damaged to make it right.

But, for now, at least the government has given the public a platform to complain about beverage companies threatening to send their urine to journalists.

Filed Under: bias, campaigns, conservative bias, content moderation, echo chamber, social media, social media bias, white house
Companies: facebook, twitter, youtube