I was quoted in this article in The Hill, talking about the dual proposals from Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) and from the Department of Justice, on content moderation. As you can probably tell, I (along with anybody that’s spent more than 2 hours in this area of tech policy) am not a fan of either.
I wrote, along with Bruna Santos, from Brazil’s Coding Rights, a piece for Brookings Institution’s TechTank, highlighting the diverse ways in which other countries (outside the US) handled legislation on content moderation.
This post originally appeared on Techdirt with the title Facebook’s Oversight Board Can’t Intervene, So Stop Asking: As Facebook employees stage a digital walk-out and make their thoughts known about the social media giant’s choice to not intervene in any way on “political posts”, especially those of President Donald Trump, some have called for the newly-created Oversight Board to step up…
Alongside my colleague Franco Giandana, I co-wrote a report on Latin America for the 2019 Edition of the Global Information Society Watch focusing on the Judicial aspect, both how AI is seen and how it’s being integrated.
This post originally appeared on the Georgia Tech School of Public Policy’s Internet Governance Project blog titled: Facebook’s Oversight Board: A toothless Supreme Court? A week and a half ago Facebook released its final charter for the Oversight Board it intends to create to tackle its content moderation problems. The charter spells out exactly how it would work,…
I wrote an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle about the recently-released final charter for Facebook’s External Oversight Board, or as it is called by some, its “Supreme Court”, and how it’s just an empty gamble in the crucial online content moderation space.
I co-authored, with Dr. Susan Aaronson, Director of the Digital Trade and Data Governance Hub (where I am a Visiting Scholar) an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, talking about the lack of US leadership on Data Governance, and how other countries are stepping up to the plate to get it done their way.
I co-authored, alongside Danielle Tomson, Director of the Personal Democracy Forum, an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, proposing the inclusion of the multistakeholder ethos of transparency, cooperation and user input, into the very complex issue of content moderation, as part of the conversation over the Alex Jones banning.
The World Health Organization included “gaming disorder” in its June final draft release of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). I wrote about it, and about why that’s not probably the best thing they could have done in my first blog post for the Diplo Foundation.
Multistakeholder Internet governance institutions are not being properly studied. Research focuses primarily on structure, which has its own set of concerns and limitations, but it overlooks the human element, which may play a vital role in shaping these institutions. The human element, which encompasses the human actors and their networks, is potentially important because of both the way the institutions themselves function internally to promote and highlight individuals, and the effect these institutions have on the participants. While this may sound interesting, a straightforward question emerges as to why this has not yet been studied. Two explanations of why this has not been the case so far cover both the substantive environment and its inherent complexities, and the theoretical biases inherent in the most prevalent lens used to study these institutions, borrowed from a related but entirely different area of research, democratic decision-making. Based on these points, before value is added to this role, it is paramount to try and uncover whether the human element has any substantial impact in the shaping and ongoing functioning of multistakeholder institutions on par with structure, and my upcoming dissertation tackles this issue.