Moderated Content

When we talk about content moderation, we often focus on companies at the application layer of the internet, like the Facebooks and Twitters of the world. But there are a whole bunch of other companies in the internet stack that have the power to knock things offline. So what is similar or different about content moderation when it moves into the infrastructure layers of the internet? Evelyn spoke with Alissa Starzak, the Vice President and Global Head of Public Policy at Cloudflare and Emma Llanso, the Director of CDT’s Free Expression Project to explore this increasingly pressing question.

SHOW NOTESStanford’s Evelyn Douek and Alex Stamos weigh in on the latest online trust and safety news and developments:The Wire retracted recent coverage of Meta and will conduct an internal review of past coverage by staff involved with the reporting. - The WireFrench police are investigating severed fiber-optic cables that disrupted internet and phone services in the Marseille area. Alex urges caution before jumping to any conclusions. John Leicester/ Associated PressTurkey's parliament voted to adopt a law that could send social media users to jail for up to three years for spreading false information to "create fear and disturb public order" despite free speech and media freedom concerns. - ReutersBrazilian authorities granted the power to order that online platforms remove content to the country’s elections chief who also sits on the supreme court. - Jack Nicas/ The New York TimesKiwi Farms was available at its original URL over the last month but is back down. - Ellie Hall/ BuzzFeedThe Republican National Committee sued Google over alleged spam filtering bias. It still has not enrolled in a new pilot program Google created with FEC approval to address those concerns. - Sara Fischer, Ashley Gold/ AxiosElon may very well buy Twitter — could an alternative platform pop up? - Perry Bacon Jr./ The Washington Post (commentary)Join the conversation and connect with Evelyn and Alex on Twitter at @evelyndouek and @alexstamos.Moderated Content is produced in partnership by Stanford Law School and the Cyber Policy Center. Special thanks to John Perrino for research and editorial assistance.Like what you heard? Don’t forget to subscribe and share the podcast with friends!

SHOW NOTESStanford’s Evelyn Douek and Alex Stamos weigh in on the latest online trust and safety news and developments:An article with bombshell allegations against Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, appears to be based on forgeries, but the news outlet continues to stand by the reporting and now claims a technical expert at the publication was hacked. - Aditi Agrawal/ newslaundry, OpIndiaMore: Last week, an article was published by The Wire, a nonprofit Indian digital news organization, claiming an internal Instagram report revealed an official in charge of social media for India’s ruling party, the BJP, had special privileges to report pieces of content to Instagram and have them taken down automatically.Meta spokesperson Andy Stone denied the report saying that that was not how the XCheck program worked, and that the “the underlying documentation appears to be fabricated.”But Wait, There’s More: The next day, The Wire published a new article claiming to have an email in which Meta’s Stone asked employees how the document leaked.Meta CISO Guy Rosen denied the allegations and explained how he determined the evidence and email were forgeries.Then: This weekend, The Wire released another story standing by their reporting with evidence that the internal email and report URL were real. The story included a video explanation of their technical analysis.Meta’s Rosen responded debunking new claims, and other experts (including Alex) pointed out flaws with purported technical evidence that the internal emails were real.We’re Still Not Done: Meta released an updated blog post debunking the purported internal system shown in The Wire’s video as an external account created after the story was reported.The Wire responded in a statement saying that the reason why Meta keeps denying their reporting is to try and get them to publish more information that will reveal their sources but they “are not prepared to play this game any further.” The statement was later edited to delete the description of a “personal” relationship with a source.Got All That? Here’s Some Context: India is pushing ahead with legislation that would create a government-appointed panel to review user complaints about social media content moderation decisions. - Megha Mandavia/ The Wall Street JournalMeta officials are also reported to leniently apply policies, such as those barring hate speech, for the Indian ruling party. Newley Purnell, Jeff Horwitz/ The Wall Street JournalYe, the artist formerly known as Kanye West, has reached an agreement to buy the conservative social media platform Parler. The move marks a growing trend of billionaires buying social media companies when their posts are moderated. - Ryan Browne/ CNBC, Marlene Lenthang/ NBC News, Bobby Allyn/ NPR, Kelly Hooper/ PoliticoThe Katmai National Park and Preserve’s Fat Bear Week bracket voting tournament was marred by an attempt to artificially inflate votes for 435 Holly over Bear 747 in the semifinal round. Luckily, the organizers caught the fishy business and preserved the sanctity of the tournament which had a record of more than one million total votes. - Miles Klee/ Rolling StoneJoin the conversation and connect with Evelyn and Alex on Twitter at @evelyndouek and @alexstamos.Moderated Content is produced in partnership by Stanford Law School and the Cyber Policy Center. Special thanks to John Perrino for research and editorial assistance.Like what you heard? Don’t forget to subscribe and share the podcast with friends!

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court granted cert in two cases concerning the scope of platform liability for content on their services: Gonzalez v. Google, about whether platforms lose section 230 immunity when they recommend content to users, and Twitter v. Taamneh, about whether platforms can be found to have aided and abetted terrorism if they are found to have been insufficiently aggressive in removing terrorist content from their sites. The cert grants were a surprise, and the cases are complicated. Evelyn sat down with Daphne Keller, the podcast’s Supreme Court Correspondent, to dig into the details.

Stanford’s Evelyn Douek and Alex Stamos weigh in on the latest online trust and safety news and developments:The Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases that could determine the scope of liability for websites and social media platforms that host and promote user content. - Rebecca Kern/ Politico, Rachel Lerman/ The Washington Post, David Ingram/ NBC NewsGonzalez v. Google is the case getting the most attention because somehow the words “Section 230” have become clickbait — quite an achievement for a random provision of federal law. The question in Gonzalez is whether platforms lose Section 230 protections for content that they promote. The family of a victim of the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks brought the suit.But we also really want to highlight Twitter Inc. v. Taamneh, which is about whether platforms can be found to have “aided and abetted” terrorism by having terrorist content on their services. The case was brought by the family of a victim of a 2017 terrorist attack in Istanbul which claims Twitter, Google, and Facebook aided and abetted terrorism by allowing the Islamic State on their platforms in violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act.Meta took down influence operations linked to China and Russia. The Chinese campaign was the first to target U.S. politics ahead of the midterms, but was clearly fake and had low engagement. The larger Russian network replicated media organizations to spread pro-Kremlin narratives about the war in Ukraine. - Steven Lee Myers/ The New York Times, Donie O'Sullivan/ CNN, Ben Nimmo/ Meta, Nika Aleksejeva, Roman Osadchuk, Sopo Gelava, Jean Le Roux, Mattia Caniglia, Daniel Suárez Pérez, Alyssa Kann/ DFRLabSpotify announced it is acquiring content moderation company Kinzen, bringing expertise and proprietary tools in house to improve trust and safety. - Sarah Perez/ TechCrunchPayPal is facing blowback after proposing rules that would have allowed it to fine users $2,500 for promoting misinformation — which the online payment service has since called an error. - Cristiano Lima/ The Washington PostCalifornia passed a “cyberflashing” law that allows recipients of unwanted sexual imagery to take legal action against the sender for up to $30,000 in civil damages. California is the third state to pass a law that provides legal recourse for this form of sexual harrassment and abuse. - Cristiano Lima/ The Washington PostMore: The dating app Bumble played a significant role pushing for the new law. The app requires women to send the first messages to matches in an attempt to create a better dating experience.Context: The new law may be a sign of a trend across state legislatures which are increasingly passing measures against online harms and abuse. A Bumble executive to The Washington Post the company plans to push for similar legislation in Maryland, New York and D.C.Join the conversation and connect with Evelyn and Alex on Twitter at @evelyndouek and @alexstamos.Moderated Content is produced in partnership by Stanford Law School and the Cyber Policy Center. Special thanks to John Perrino for research and editorial assistance.Like what you heard? Don’t forget to subscribe and share the podcast with friends!

Last week the Fifth Circuit upheld a Texas social media law that, among other things, prevents platforms from discriminating against users based on their viewpoint. The leading opinion declared that a bunch of things we thought we knew about how the First Amendment and content moderation work are wrong. Next stop: the Supreme Court. evelyn talks with Daphne Keller, director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center, and Genevieve Lakier, Professor of Law and the Herbert and Marjorie Fried Teaching Scholar at the University of Chicago, about what the ruling said and what it means—to the extent that’s decipherable.