Friday, June 14, 2019
EFF discusses big platforms with respect to transparency in censorship policies, post Voxadpocalypse
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.