Electronic Frontier Foundation reports “Social media
platforms increase transparency about content removal, but many users are kept
in the dark when their speech is censored,” basic link , by Gennie Gebhart. The series is called "Who Has Your Back?"
The article links to a table listing major social
media platforms and rating them on (1) responding to legal requests (2)
responding to platform requests (3) giving notice (4) appeals notice (5)
appeals transparency and (6) Santa Clara Principle.
YouTube, Facebook and Twitter were reported as OK on
Santa Clara Principles but all have had serious problems.
Oddly, Wordpress was not listed as complying with the principles.
Vimeo was listed as complying with anything.
There seems little progress on YouTube’s responding to
Ford Fischer’s situation with respect to allowing some monetization of live (neutral)
reporting of critical historical events (as they develop) including more extremist
speech.
Perhaps YouTube believes this sort of material needs
to be produced only on larger platforms, particularly for documentary film
(HBO, Participant Media) and that this no longer works. I would think these platforms will fund more
documentary film on Charlottesville.
YouTube is very concerned about misuse of their
material by less educated users for radicalization, being blamed for making profit
off it. It also seems to be concerned about speakers who reject the idea of protecting people specifically because they belong to specific groups rather than on individualistic values.
Reason has an important op-ed by Nick Gillespie, that
muscular censorship is really bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment