Platform Content Moderation: Some Humility about Transparency – Daphne Keller

I am a huge fan of transparency about platform content moderation. I’ve considered it a top policy priority for years, and written about it in detail (with Paddy Leerssen, who also wrote this great piece about recommendation algorithms and transparency). I sincerely believe that without it, we are unlikely to correctly diagnose current problems or arrive at wise legal solutions.

Broad Consequences of a Systemic Duty of Care for Platforms – Daphne Keller [Updated]

In a previous post, I described the growing calls for what I called a “systemic duty of care” (“SDOC”) in platform regulation. I suggested that SDOC requirements would create difficult questions in ordinary intermediary liability litigation.

Systemic Duties of Care and Intermediary Liability – Daphne Keller

Policymakers in Europe and around the world are currently pursuing two reasonable-sounding goals for platform regulation. First, they want platforms to abide by a “duty of care,” going beyond today’s notice-and-takedown based legal models to more proactively weed out illegal content posted by users.

Filtering Facebook: Why Internet Users and EU Policymakers Should Worry about the Advocate General’s Opinion in Glawischnig-Piesczek – Daphne Keller

Summer is winding down, and policymakers in Brussels are returning to an ambitious task: drafting new regulation for the Internet. Meanwhile, in Luxembourg, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is deciding cases that will affect both Internet platforms’ operations and lawmakers’ choices in devising new laws.

A Glossary of Internet Content Blocking Tools – Daphne Keller

Conversations about unlawful online content and the responsibilities of Internet intermediaries have become more heated in recent years. Participants in these discussions often lack common terminology or understanding of technological options for online content control.

Problems with Filters in the European Commission’s Platforms Proposal – Daphne Keller

Earlier I posted about the European Commission’s Communication on Illegal Content Online. I said it dangerously over-estimated the power of procedural mechanisms like counter-notice to get legal speech back online once platforms take it down.

Counter-Notice does not fix over-removal of online speech – Daphne Keller

The European Commission recently released a Communication on Tackling Illegal Content Online. It concludes that platforms have a responsibility to develop filtering technologies, in order to identify illegal content ranging from copyright infringement to hate speech.

The Daily Stormer, Online Speech, and Internet Registrars – Daphne Keller

Most people I talk to think that Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies should take down ugly-but-legal user speech. Platforms are generally applauded for taking down racist posts from the White Nationalist demonstrators in Charlottesville, for example.

Google’s US Challenge to the Canadian Global Delisting Order – Daphne Keller

In its Equustek ruling in June, the Canadian Supreme Court held that Google must delete search results for users everywhere in the world, based on Canadian law. Google has now filed suit in the US, asking the court to confirm that the order can’t be enforced there. Here’s my take on that claim.

The GDPR and National Legislation: Relevant Articles for Private Platform Adjudication of “Right to Be Forgotten” Requests – Daphne Keller

In a recent blog post, I discussed the role of EU Member State laws in defining and enforcing the “Right to Be Forgotten” (RTBF) under the EU’s new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). I consider these GDPR provisions in more detail in my forthcoming article. Because in the future RTBF may be applied to hosting services like Facebook or Dailymotion, I discuss potential consequences for them as well as search engines.