Why you’re getting so many emails about privacy policies; Vox, May 24, 2018

Emily Stewart, Vox; Why you’re getting so many emails about privacy policies

"The United States hasn’t given up its seat on the table, but it could certainly take a bigger role than it has in order to ensure that other countries, when they do implement regulations on tech and information, aren’t going too far.

“People are concerned about privacy, hate speech, disinformation, and we aren’t leading on solutions to these concerns that would at the same time preserve the free flow of information,” Kornbluh said. “You don’t want some governments saying, ‘We’re combating fake news,’ and compromising human rights.”"

Facebook finally explains why it bans some content, in 27 pages; The Washington Post, April 24, 2018

Elizabeth Dwoskin and Tracy Jan, The Washington Post; Facebook finally explains why it bans some content, in 27 pages

"“We want people to know our standards, and we want to give people clarity,” Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of global policy management, said in an interview. She added that she hoped publishing the guidelines would spark dialogue. “We are trying to strike the line between safety and giving people the ability to really express themselves.”"

It’s not just America: Zuckerberg has to answer for Facebook’s actions around the world; The Washington Post, April 10, 2018

Karen Attiah, The Washington Post; It’s not just America: Zuckerberg has to answer for Facebook’s actions around the world

"In many countries around the world, Facebook is the Internet. And with little ability to influence how the social media site operates, such nations are vulnerable to any policy action — or inaction — the company decides to take.

So while Zuckerberg struggles to answer for how his company is affecting Americans, let’s not forget that he has a lot more to answer for...

Time will tell if countries outside of the United States will ever be able to compel Zuckerberg to appear before their citizens and lawmakers to answer for Facebook’s actions. He may never appear in say, Germany, India, or Nigeria on his whirlwind apology tour. Nevertheless, he should not be absolved from the global consequences of the digital empire that he has built."

What a presidential president would have said about Charlottesville; Washington Post, August 12, 2017

Editorial Board; Washington Post; What a presidential president would have said about Charlottesville

"HERE IS what President Trump said Saturday about the violence in Charlottesville sparked by a demonstration of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members:

We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides. On many sides.

Here is what a presidential president would have said:

“The violence Friday and Saturday in Charlottesville, Va., is a tragedy and an unacceptable, impermissible assault on American values. It is an assault, specifically, on the ideals we cherish most in a pluralistic democracy — tolerance, peaceable coexistence and diversity.

“The events were triggered by individuals who embrace and extol hatred. Racists, neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members and their sympathizers — these are the extremists who fomented the violence in Charlottesville, and whose views all Americans must condemn and reject.

“To wink at racism or to condone it through silence, or false moral equivalence, or elision, as some do, is no better and no more acceptable than racism itself. Just as we can justly identify radical Islamic terrorism when we see it, and call it out, so can we all see the racists in Charlottesville, and understand that they are anathema in our society, which depends so centrally on mutual respect.

“Under whatever labels and using whatever code words — ‘heritage,’ ‘tradition,’ ‘nationalism’ — the idea that whites or any other ethnic, national or racial group is superior to another is not acceptable. Americans should not excuse, and I as president will not countenance, fringe elements in our society who peddle such anti-American ideas. While they have deep and noxious roots in our history, they must not be given any quarter nor any license today.

“Nor will we accept acts of domestic terrorism perpetrated by such elements. If, as appears to be the case, the vehicle that plowed into the counterprotesters on Saturday in Charlottesville did so intentionally, the driver should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The American system of justice must and will treat a terrorist who is Christian or Buddhist or Hindu or anything else just as it treats a terrorist who is Muslim — just as it treated those who perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013.

“We may all have pressing and legitimate questions about how the violence in Charlottesville unfolded — and whether it could have been prevented. There will be time in coming days to delve further into those matters, and demand answers. In the meantime, I stand ready to provide any and all resources from the federal government to ensure there will be no recurrence of such violence in Virginia or elsewhere. Let us keep the victims of this terrible tragedy in our thoughts and prayers, and keep faith that the values enshrined in our Constitution and laws will prevail against those who would desecrate our democracy.”"

Can words kill people?; Washington Post, June 20, 2017

Kathleen Parker, Washington Post; Can words kill people?

"Too much free speech is better than too little, the courts have decided.

But what rules apply when a teenager allegedly persuades her boyfriend to kill himself? Aren’t we free to say whatever we choose in a private conversation with another person?..

Carter may have been despicable for her damning encouragement, but we should be very clear: She didn’t kill anyone. Words do matter, but they’re not lethal."

"Ripple Effect"; Bizarro, Go Comics, June 19, 2017

Dan Piraro, Bizarro, Go Comics; "Ripple Effect"

Making Google the Censor; New York Times, June 12, 2017

Daphne Keller, New York Times; Making Google the Censor

"Prime Minister Theresa May’s political fortunes may be waning in Britain, but her push to make internet companies police their users’ speech is alive and well. In the aftermath of the recent London attacks, Ms. May called platforms like Google and Facebook breeding grounds for terrorism. She has demanded that they build tools to identify and remove extremist content. Leaders of the Group of 7 countries recently suggested the same thing. Germany wants to fine platforms up to 50 million euros if they don’t quickly take down illegal content. And a European Union draft law would make YouTube and other video hosts responsible for ensuring that users never share violent speech.

The fears and frustrations behind these proposals are understandable. But making private companies curtail user expression in important public forums — which is what platforms like Twitter and Facebook have become — is dangerous. The proposed laws would harm free expression and information access for journalists, political dissidents and ordinary users. Policy makers should be candid about these consequences and not pretend that Silicon Valley has silver-bullet technology that can purge the internet of extremist content without taking down important legal speech with it."

Harvard withdraws 10 acceptances for ‘offensive’ memes in private group chat; Washington Post, June 5, 2017

Samantha Schmidt, Washington Post; Harvard withdraws 10 acceptances for ‘offensive’ memes in private group chat

"The students in the spinoff group exchanged memes and images “mocking sexual assault, the Holocaust and the deaths of children,” sometimes directing jokes at specific ethnic or racial groups, the Crimson reported. One message “called the hypothetical hanging of a Mexican child ‘piñata time’” while other messages quipped that “abusing children was sexually arousing,” according to images of the chat described by the Crimson.

Then, university officials caught on. And in mid-April, after administrators discovered the offensive, racially charged meme exchanges, at least 10 incoming students who participated in the chat received letters informing them that their offers of admission had been revoked...

According to Harvard college admissions policies, the university reserves the right to withdraw an offer of admission if the admitted student “engages or has engaged in behavior that brings into question their honesty, maturity or moral character,” among other conditions, Dane told The Post."

Twitter Fails E.U. Standard on Removing Hate Speech Online; New York Times, May 31, 2017

Mark Scott, New York Times; Twitter Fails E.U. Standard on Removing Hate Speech Online

"Twitter has failed to meet European standards for removing hate speech online, figures to be published Thursday show, as pressure mounts, particularly on the Continent, for tech companies to do more to tackle such harmful material.

The battle between European policy makers and tech companies over what should be permitted online has pitted freedom of speech campaigners against those who say hate speech — in whatever form — has no place on the internet.

In this standoff, European officials have called on Silicon Valley companies to take down at least 50 percent of the hate speech from their services once they are notified, and they signed up the likes of Twitter, Facebook and Google to a voluntary code of conduct last year to combat the rising tide of harmful content online."

‘Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment,’ Portland mayor says. He’s wrong.; Washington Post, May 30, 2017

Kristine Phillips, Washington Post; ‘Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment,’ Portland mayor says. He’s wrong.

"Although the organizers of the rallies have a constitutional right to speak, “hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment,” Wheeler told reporters.

But history and precedent are not on Wheeler's side.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech, no matter how bigoted or offensive, is free speech.

Although certain forms of speech are not protected by the First Amendment, hate speech isn't one of them, Eugene Volokh, a law professor and free speech expert, wrote last month. For it to be banned, experts say, it must rise to the level of threat or harassment."

Revealed: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence; Guardian, May 21, 2017

Nick Hopkins, Guardian; 

Revealed: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence

"Facebook’s secret rules and guidelines for deciding what its 2 billion users can post on the site are revealed for the first time in a Guardian investigation that will fuel the global debate about the role and ethics of the social media giant.

The Guardian has seen more than 100 internal training manuals, spreadsheets and flowcharts that give unprecedented insight into the blueprints Facebook has used to moderate issues such as violence, hate speech, terrorism, pornography, racism and self-harm...

The Facebook Files give the first view of the codes and rules formulated by the site, which is under huge political pressure in Europe and the US."

The Rise and Fall of Yik Yak, the Anonymous Messaging App; New York Times, May 27, 2017

Valeriya Safronova, New York Times; The Rise and Fall of Yik Yak, the Anonymous Messaging App

"At the end of that year, Mr. Droll and Mr. Buffington laid off 60 percent of their employees, and last month, they shut down the operation, selling off intellectual property and employee contracts to Square Inc., a mobile payment company, for $1 million. A few months earlier, Hive, a college-based chat app with a similar color scheme to Yik Yak’s, popped up in the iTunes and Google Play stores, with Mr. Buffington in one of the screenshots. Whether it was an attempt at reinvention under the Yik Yak umbrella or a side project is unclear, but it is no longer available...

Morgan Hines, who will start her fourth year at Northeastern University in Boston this fall, never encountered nastiness on Yik Yak. “I thought it was funny,” she said. “It formed a lot of camaraderie between students. There would be random shout-outs to things happening on campus, like people who are attractive or being annoying in the library, or a fire alarm going off at 4 a.m.”

But Ms. Hines criticized Yik Yak’s hyper-localization. “Yik Yak was for pockets of people on campus,” she said. “If the fire alarm went off at 4 a.m., it only went off at your building, so no one else will give it a thumbs-up.”

That hyper-localization is also what made the cases of harassment particularly galling. Ms. Musick, one of the plaintiffs, said, “With Yik Yak, in the back of your mind, you know they’re not from around the world or other parts of the state, they’re right there in your classroom, in your dining hall. On a campus with 4,500 students, that’s a pretty small group of people. This isn’t some creepy guy in his mom’s basement in Indiana.”"

Episode 774: Unspeakable Trademark; NPR, Planet Money, May 26, 2017

[Podcast] Jacob Goldstein, Ailsa Chang, NPR, Planet Money; 

Episode 774: Unspeakable Trademark

"Warning: This episode has explicit language, for unavoidable and soon-to-be obvious reasons...

Today on the show, a fight over a band name that turns into a fight about free speech. It goes all the way to the Supreme Court."

Facebook Gets Slap on the Wrist from 2 European Privacy Regulators; New York Times, May 16, 2017

Mark Scott, New York Times; 

Facebook Gets Slap on the Wrist from 2 European Privacy Regulators

"Facebook suffered a setback on Tuesday over how it uses the reams of information it collects about users worldwide, after two European privacy watchdogs said that the social network’s practices broke their countries’ data protection rules.

The announcement by Dutch and French authorities was part of a growing pushback across the European Union about how Facebook collects data on the bloc’s roughly 500 million residents. Some European governments, notably in Germany, are considering hefty fines against the company and other social media giants if they fail to crack down on hate speech and misinformation on their networks.

As part of their separate announcements on Tuesday, the Dutch and French officials said that Facebook had not provided people in their countries with sufficient control over how their details are used. They said that the social network had collected digital information on Facebook users as well as nonusers on third-party websites without their knowledge."

"College Is Hard"; robrogers.com, May 2, 2017

Rob Rogers, robrogers.com; "College Is Hard"

How do you stop fake news? In Germany, with a law.; Washington Post, April 5, 2017

Anthony Faiola and Stephanie Kirchner, Washington Post; How do you stop fake news? In Germany, with a law.

"Germany officially unveiled a landmark social-media bill Wednesday that could quickly turn this nation into a test case in the effort to combat the spread of fake news and hate speech in the West.

The highly anticipated draft bill is also highly contentious, with critics denouncing it as a curb on free speech. If passed, as now appears likely, the measure would compel large outlets such as Facebook and Twitter to rapidly remove fake news that incites hate, as well as other “criminal” content, or face fines as high as 50 million euros ($53 million)."

Free Speech Advocates, Publishers Wrestle With Questions Of Censorship; NPR, 1/12/17

Lynn Neary, NPR; 

Free Speech Advocates, Publishers Wrestle With Questions Of Censorship

"Both the NCAC and PEN America say the best response to hate speech is not more censorship.

"Trying to suppress hateful speech doesn't make it go away," says Bertin. "I mean, I think the whole idea of free speech requires us to be active participants, and when we hear ideas that we think are bad and harmful, it requires us to say 'why,' not just say 'shut up.'"

But publisher Dennis Johnson says another equally important right is at stake here: The right to protest.

"This is not about censoring right wing voices," he says. "This is about combating hate speech and its entry into the mainstream.""

‘We’re going to put a bullet in your head’: #PizzaGate threats terrorize D.C. shop owners; Washington Post, 12/6/16

John Woodrow Cox, Washington Post; ‘We’re going to put a bullet in your head’: #PizzaGate threats terrorize D.C. shop owners:

"Ousmaal first reported the harassment of her restaurant to D.C. police two weeks ago, but in emails she shared with The Post, an officer told her they couldn’t do anything to prevent free speech. He suggested she file a lawsuit.

She understands freedom of speech, Ousmaal replied in an email, but “derogatory libelous and hateful blogs and emails should not and cannot qualify.”"

Facebook Runs Up Against German Hate Speech Laws; New York Times, 11/28/16

Mark Scott and Melissa Eddy, New York Times; Facebook Runs Up Against German Hate Speech Laws:

"In Germany, more than almost anywhere else in the West, lawmakers, including Chancellor Angela Merkel, are demanding that Facebook go further to police what is said on the social network — a platform that now has 1.8 billion users worldwide. The country’s lawmakers also want other American tech giants to meet similar standards.

The often-heated dispute has raised concerns over maintaining freedom of speech while protecting vulnerable minorities in a country where the legacy of World War II and decades under Communism still resonate.

It is occurring amid mounting criticism of Facebook in the United States after fake news reports were shared widely on the site before the presidential election. Facebook also has been accused of allowing similar false reports to spread during elections elsewhere."

Campus Libraries See Increase in Discriminatory Incidents; Library Journal, 11/28/16

Lisa Peet, Library Journal; Campus Libraries See Increase in Discriminatory Incidents:

"Within the libraries, administrators have used these events to highlight ongoing issues such as how to spot and respond to fake news. On a wider scale, they have stepped up their mission to support various campus communities and interest groups, particularly when it comes to student welfare. Said Hutto, “We, like a lot of colleges, have been very proactive about increasing diversity on campus. I think especially for those students, they definitely… are thinking of Reed as being a safe place. And to find out that it’s kind of like any other place is not a pleasant thing for them. We’re really concerned about them.”

In a statement released by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), Chris Bourg, director of libraries at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and ARL Diversity and Inclusion Committee chair, stated, “While ARL libraries and archives work hard to be inclusive in their hiring, collections, services, and environments, the Association and its members will not claim neutrality in the face of discrimination, sexism, ableism, racism, homophobia, religious persecution, or other forms of oppression. We support freedom of speech and the open exchange of ideas and opinions, but we will not tolerate hate speech, silencing, inflammatory rhetoric, or any other speech or action that threatens the safety or dignity of any member of our community.”

Addressing the proactive role campus libraries can play post-election, Bourg wrote in a statement from MIT Libraries, “This election has highlighted the urgent need for open, enduring, and equitable access to credible sources of news, data, and knowledge. At the MIT Libraries we will redouble our efforts to provide not only credible sources of information to our communities, but also the expertise, services, collections, tools, and spaces that facilitate and promote the critical assessment of information. We will also continue to document and provide access to the ideas, knowledge, and perspectives of our communities, as we did by archiving the post-election posters containing the immediate reactions of MIT students and community members.”"