"If there's any sort of saving grace or positive of this judgment, it's to sort of shed some light on the kinds of relationships that the platforms have," she says.īusiness Twitter once muzzled Russian and Chinese state propaganda. How big of a change will this be? Do we know how much the government has been working with social media companies to remove or suppress this content?ĭouek says not enough is known about what sort of contact tech companies regularly have with government agencies and officials. Republicans have accused the Biden administration of attempting to outsource its alleged efforts to stifle speech to outside organizations and academics. The ruling also prevents federal officials from working with third parties including the Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, and the Stanford Internet Observatory - three academic research groups that track the spread of online information.
#Speech to text online firex how to
The Biden administration says it isn't telling social media companies what to take down or how to set policies, but that it has an interest in promoting accurate information about urgent issues like public health and elections, and curbing the spread of illegal material including terrorism and child sex abuse.
And while those things maybe have scientific answers, the unscientific answers are clearly protected speech." It was statements about whether vaccines worked or not. "It was statements about whether the election was fraudulent or accurate. "It was pretty clear on the part of everybody involved in this, that the speech involved was clearly protected by the First Amendment," he says. Politics She joined DHS to fight disinformation. She notes that while there are exceptions for certain types of criminal content, overall, the "clear message is to have this sort of chilling effect on communication between the government and platforms." What does the judge's ruling say?ĭoughty issued a temporary injunction blocking agencies including the departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, and State, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI and many individual government officials from doing things like notifying platforms about specific posts that may be against their own rules or asking for information about content moderation efforts.
"The injunction enjoins tens of thousands, maybe hundred thousands of federal government employees from having almost any kind of communication with private platforms about content on their services," Douek tells NPR. "It's hard to think of a more sweeping ruling," says Evelyn Douek, an expert on the regulation of online speech and a professor at Stanford Law School. Untangling Disinformation The new normal of election disinformation
0 kommentar(er)
