2 Day Two: The Present, or the Era of Public Health 2 Day Two: The Present, or the Era of Public Health
9/30
In the era of public health, we have become cognizant of the tangible effects of platforms’ policy decisions. By the 2010s, users expectations had changed. In the wake of growing awareness of online harassment and hate speech, sites like Twitter with blanket refusals to police users’ content went from internet heroes to internet villains. As Kate Klonick demonstrates, platforms responded by increasing their moderation out of a fear of losing users. Furthermore, states have stepped in. In the past year, we have seen significant new legislation rooted in the “public health” framework that attempts to scale back platforms’ Section 230 immunity. Motivated by a desire to cut down on illegal sex trafficking, FOSTA-SESTA has produced increased pressure for platforms to delete content.
2.1 [PDF TO BE CIRCULATED] “The Offensive Internet: Speech, Privacy and Reputation” by Martha Nussbaum and Saul Levmore (2010). Read p. 1-11. 2.1 [PDF TO BE CIRCULATED] “The Offensive Internet: Speech, Privacy and Reputation” by Martha Nussbaum and Saul Levmore (2010). Read p. 1-11.
Nussbaum and Levmore highlight a variety of harms to individuals’ reputations caused by online harassment, and take aim at the Communications Decency Act, arguing that speech on the internet ought to be regulated as much as speech in other venues and media.
2.2. “The New Governors: The People, Rules, and Processes Governing Online Speech” by Kate Klonick, Harvard Law Review (2018). Read Section II.
What led platforms to change their approach to moderating online speech? Given the immunity provided by § 230, why moderate at all? What does this tell us about the incentives to which platforms respond?
2.3. “Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act Must be Fixed” by Carrie Goldberg, Lawfare (2019).
Herrick v. Grindr provides a case study of some of the harms permitted under § 230, as well as attempts to circumvent it by plaintiffs. Do you agree that this case reveals that § 230 must be fixed? What are the dangers of changing § 230 in the ways Goldberg proposes?
2.4. “Towards a Clearer Conversation about Platform Liability” by Daphne Keller, Knight First Amendment Institute (2018).
Daphne Keller outlines a defense of CDA 230 in response to claims that it lets platforms tolerate harmful speech. She argues that changing CDA 230 will not curb offensive speech or privacy harms. How compelling is this rebuttal?
2.5. “Online networks of eating-disorder websites” by Antonio Casilli et al., Perspectives in Public Health (2013).
Within the framework of public health, platforms are encouraged to remove content that poses a harm to users even when the users themselves seek it out. What do we do when it turns out that removing harmful content may further endanger users and that platforms’ policies contribute to these harms?
2.6. Overview of Publius Publishing System
In the era of public health, the ability to curtail the “offensive internet” is dependent on the centralized architecture of most platforms. When the nature of the platform does not allow for this, such as with Publius, how far are we willing to go to prevent online harms?