Podcasts about platform regulation

2025 will be a pivotal year for technology regulation in the United States and around the world. The European Union has begun regulating social media platforms with its Digital Services Act. In the United States, regulatory proposals at the federal level will likely include renewed efforts to repeal or reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Meanwhile, States such as Florida and Texas have tried to restrict content moderation by major platforms, but have been met with challenges to the laws' constitutionality.  On March 19, NYU Law hosted a Forum on whether it is lawful, feasible, and desirable for government actors to regulate social media platforms to reduce harmful effects on U.S. democracy and society with expert guests Daphne Keller, Director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford Law School's Cyber Policy Center, and Michael Posner, Director of the Center for Business and Human Rights at NYU Stern School of Business. Tess Bridgeman and Ryan Goodman, co-editors-in-chief of Just Security, moderated the event, which was co-hosted by Just Security, the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights and Tech Policy Press. Show Notes: Tess Bridgeman Ryan GoodmanDaphne Keller Michael PosnerJust Security's coverage on Social Media PlatformsJust Security's coverage on Section 230Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Robert Gorwa is the author of a new book titled The Politics of Platform Regulation: How Governments Shape Online Content Moderation, published by Oxford University Press. (The book is available open access- download a free copy here.) It is an analysis of how and why governments around the world engage in platform regulation. The lessons he draws from case studies of key regulatory developments in Europe, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia help explain the adoption of different regulatory strategies by these governments and the underlying politics that shape their approach.

Subscribe to Grand Tamasha on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Overcast, or your favorite podcast app. I spoke with Aarushi Kalra Ph.D. candidate in Economics at Brown University. We discussed her job market paper, “Hate in the Time of Algorithms: Evidence from a Large-Scale Experiment on Online Behavior.” We talked about the demand and supply of toxicity against minorities on social media platforms, user behavior, platform behavior, real world segregation due to ethnic violence, and much more.  Recorded October 24th, 2024. Read a full transcript enhanced with helpful links. Connect with Ideas of India Follow us on X Follow Shruti on X Follow Aarushi on X Click here for the latest Ideas of India episodes sent straight to your inbox. Timestamps (00:00:00) - Intro (00:00:58) - Grand Tamasha (00:02:31) - Exploring How Social Media Users Engage with Toxic Content (00:06:06) - Understanding the Drivers of Toxic Speech on the Internet (00:08:50) - Definitions of Toxic Content (00:11:05) - Scale of Data and Choice of Language (00:12:23) - Impact of Recommendation Algorithms on User Engagement (00:16:27) - Key Findings on Toxic Content Exposure and Sharing (00:22:08) - Interpreting How Personalization Shapes Engagement in Toxic Social Media Content (00:25:31) - How Recognizing the Agency and Sophistication of Users Shapes Interpretive Models (00:31:45) - The Challenges of Platform Regulation (00:34:04) - The Challenges of Creating Interventions to Address Toxic Content (00:35:46) - Social Media as Normalizing Toxic Speech (00:38:09) - The Route of the Ram Rath Yatra As Lens on Segregation (00:48:58) - Outro

Alex and Evelyn discuss the arrest and charges against Telegram's CEO, Pavel Durov, in France, what we do and don't know, and what it means for the future of platform regulation, with Frédérick Douzet, Professor at the French Institute of Politics and the director of GEODE, and Daphne Keller, director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center.

In this week's round-up of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike is joined by guest host Daphne Keller, the Director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center. They cover:Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of NetChoice Over California's Age Appropriate Design Code (Ninth Circuit)Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta on appellate court decision regarding California's Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (State of California)Regulating platform risk and design: ChatGPT says the quiet part out loud (Stanford Cyberlaw blog)X says it is closing operations in Brazil due to judge's content orders (CNBC)Indigenous creators are clashing with YouTube's and Instagram's sensitive content bans (Rest of World)Teens are making thousands by debating Trump vs. Harris on TikTok (Rest of World)Forced to rethink this Patreon (Chris Klimas Patreon)Ninth Circuit Allows Case Against YOLO Technologies to Proceed (Ninth Circuit)This episode is brought to you with financial support from the Future of Online Trust & Safety Fund. Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast from Techdirt and Everything in Moderation. Send us your feedback at podcast@ctrlaltspeech.com and sponsorship enquiries to sponsorship@ctrlaltspeech.com. Thanks for listening.

On July 1, the Supreme Court issued a 9-0 ruling in NetChoice v. Moody, a case on Florida and Texas's social media laws aimed at preventing companies like Facebook and YouTube from discriminating against users based on their political beliefs. The court essentially kicked the cases back down to lower courts, the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, because they hadn't fully explored the First Amendment implications of the laws, including how they might affect direct messages or services like Venmo and Uber. While both sides declared victory, the laws are currently enjoined until the lower court complete their remand, and a majority of justices in their opinions seemed skeptical that regulating the news feeds and content algorithms of social media companies wouldn't violate the firms' First Amendment rights. Other justices like Samuel Alito argued the ruling is narrow and left the door open for states to try and regulate content moderation.So how will the lower courts proceed? Will any parts of the Florida and Texas laws stand? What will it mean for the future of social media regulation? And could the ruling have spillover effects into other areas of tech regulation, such as efforts to restrict social media for children or impose privacy regulations? Evan and Luke are joined by Daphne Keller, Platform Regulation Director at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center. Previously, she was Associate General Counsel at Google where she led work on web search and other products. You can read her Wall Street Journal op-ed on the case here and her Lawfare piece here.

We explore the intersection of platform governance and media policy and examine the impact of inter-and-intra-organizational behavior on platform governance and content moderation.

The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) is expected to come up with a framework soon to facilitate the registration and regulation of social media platform providers. We discuss how this framework could affect the industry with Alexander Wong, managing editor and co-founder of SoyaCincau.Image credit: MCMC

This episode of TWiT explores the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) on creative industries like writing, the monopolistic practices of Big Tech, and the concepts of open-washing and chokepoint capitalism. Cory Doctorow discusses his upcoming appearance in a Futurama episode inspired by his book Chokepoint Capitalism The downsides of Twitter under Elon Musk as an example of chokepoint capitalism unwinding Brewster Kahle and the Internet Archive's copyright disputes over digitized books in its Emergency Library Canada's law requiring Big Tech to pay news publishers, and Meta's ban on news sharing in response The CFPB cracking down on predatory data brokers Google's "topics" proposal for interest-based ads on Chrome and privacy concerns The threats AI poses to creative professions like writing, and the implications of copyright The misleading hype around AI and job loss statistics from companies like IBM The importance of interoperability for technology platforms and digital rights How copyright law views AI-generated art and content The issues around copyrighted content being used to train AI systems by companies like OpenAI The concept of "open washing" and whether companies like OpenAI really embody openness The America COMPETES Act, proposed antitrust legislation targeting Big Tech's ad market power The role of users and tool creators in establishing boundaries on things like advertising Rebecca Giblin's experience publishing out-of-print Australian books as the non-profit publisher Untapped The podcast IP Provocations and its discussions relating to AI and intellectual property Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: expressvpn.com/twit NetSuite.com/TWIT mintmobile.com/twit

This episode of TWiT explores the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) on creative industries like writing, the monopolistic practices of Big Tech, and the concepts of open-washing and chokepoint capitalism. Cory Doctorow discusses his upcoming appearance in a Futurama episode inspired by his book Chokepoint Capitalism The downsides of Twitter under Elon Musk as an example of chokepoint capitalism unwinding Brewster Kahle and the Internet Archive's copyright disputes over digitized books in its Emergency Library Canada's law requiring Big Tech to pay news publishers, and Meta's ban on news sharing in response The CFPB cracking down on predatory data brokers Google's "topics" proposal for interest-based ads on Chrome and privacy concerns The threats AI poses to creative professions like writing, and the implications of copyright The misleading hype around AI and job loss statistics from companies like IBM The importance of interoperability for technology platforms and digital rights How copyright law views AI-generated art and content The issues around copyrighted content being used to train AI systems by companies like OpenAI The concept of "open washing" and whether companies like OpenAI really embody openness The America COMPETES Act, proposed antitrust legislation targeting Big Tech's ad market power The role of users and tool creators in establishing boundaries on things like advertising Rebecca Giblin's experience publishing out-of-print Australian books as the non-profit publisher Untapped The podcast IP Provocations and its discussions relating to AI and intellectual property Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: expressvpn.com/twit NetSuite.com/TWIT mintmobile.com/twit

This episode of TWiT explores the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) on creative industries like writing, the monopolistic practices of Big Tech, and the concepts of open-washing and chokepoint capitalism. Cory Doctorow discusses his upcoming appearance in a Futurama episode inspired by his book Chokepoint Capitalism The downsides of Twitter under Elon Musk as an example of chokepoint capitalism unwinding Brewster Kahle and the Internet Archive's copyright disputes over digitized books in its Emergency Library Canada's law requiring Big Tech to pay news publishers, and Meta's ban on news sharing in response The CFPB cracking down on predatory data brokers Google's "topics" proposal for interest-based ads on Chrome and privacy concerns The threats AI poses to creative professions like writing, and the implications of copyright The misleading hype around AI and job loss statistics from companies like IBM The importance of interoperability for technology platforms and digital rights How copyright law views AI-generated art and content The issues around copyrighted content being used to train AI systems by companies like OpenAI The concept of "open washing" and whether companies like OpenAI really embody openness The America COMPETES Act, proposed antitrust legislation targeting Big Tech's ad market power The role of users and tool creators in establishing boundaries on things like advertising Rebecca Giblin's experience publishing out-of-print Australian books as the non-profit publisher Untapped The podcast IP Provocations and its discussions relating to AI and intellectual property Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: expressvpn.com/twit NetSuite.com/TWIT mintmobile.com/twit

This episode of TWiT explores the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) on creative industries like writing, the monopolistic practices of Big Tech, and the concepts of open-washing and chokepoint capitalism. Cory Doctorow discusses his upcoming appearance in a Futurama episode inspired by his book Chokepoint Capitalism The downsides of Twitter under Elon Musk as an example of chokepoint capitalism unwinding Brewster Kahle and the Internet Archive's copyright disputes over digitized books in its Emergency Library Canada's law requiring Big Tech to pay news publishers, and Meta's ban on news sharing in response The CFPB cracking down on predatory data brokers Google's "topics" proposal for interest-based ads on Chrome and privacy concerns The threats AI poses to creative professions like writing, and the implications of copyright The misleading hype around AI and job loss statistics from companies like IBM The importance of interoperability for technology platforms and digital rights How copyright law views AI-generated art and content The issues around copyrighted content being used to train AI systems by companies like OpenAI The concept of "open washing" and whether companies like OpenAI really embody openness The America COMPETES Act, proposed antitrust legislation targeting Big Tech's ad market power The role of users and tool creators in establishing boundaries on things like advertising Rebecca Giblin's experience publishing out-of-print Australian books as the non-profit publisher Untapped The podcast IP Provocations and its discussions relating to AI and intellectual property Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: expressvpn.com/twit NetSuite.com/TWIT mintmobile.com/twit

This episode of TWiT explores the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) on creative industries like writing, the monopolistic practices of Big Tech, and the concepts of open-washing and chokepoint capitalism. Cory Doctorow discusses his upcoming appearance in a Futurama episode inspired by his book Chokepoint Capitalism The downsides of Twitter under Elon Musk as an example of chokepoint capitalism unwinding Brewster Kahle and the Internet Archive's copyright disputes over digitized books in its Emergency Library Canada's law requiring Big Tech to pay news publishers, and Meta's ban on news sharing in response The CFPB cracking down on predatory data brokers Google's "topics" proposal for interest-based ads on Chrome and privacy concerns The threats AI poses to creative professions like writing, and the implications of copyright The misleading hype around AI and job loss statistics from companies like IBM The importance of interoperability for technology platforms and digital rights How copyright law views AI-generated art and content The issues around copyrighted content being used to train AI systems by companies like OpenAI The concept of "open washing" and whether companies like OpenAI really embody openness The America COMPETES Act, proposed antitrust legislation targeting Big Tech's ad market power The role of users and tool creators in establishing boundaries on things like advertising Rebecca Giblin's experience publishing out-of-print Australian books as the non-profit publisher Untapped The podcast IP Provocations and its discussions relating to AI and intellectual property Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: expressvpn.com/twit NetSuite.com/TWIT mintmobile.com/twit

Introduction Christophe Deloire, Chair, Forum on Information & Democracy

From March 18, 2021: On this episode of Arbiters of Truth, the Lawfare Podcast's miniseries on our online information ecosystem, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Daphne Keller, the director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center and an expert on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the statute that shields internet platforms from civil liability for third-party content on their websites. The statute has been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans, and both President Trump and President Biden separately called for its repeal. So what should we expect in terms of potential revision of 230 during the current Congress? What does Daphne think about the various proposals on the table? And how is it that so many proposals to reform 230 would be foiled by that pesky First Amendment?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court this week held oral arguments in a pair of cases that have tech companies, First Amendment advocates and digital rights-watchers on edge. On Tuesday it heard arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, a case that could redefine a decades-old law that protects online platforms from liability for third-party content they host. And on Wednesday it debated Twitter v. Taamneh, which asks whether the social media company violated an anti-terrorism law based on videos its algorithm promoted. We'll talk about how the justices appeared to be leaning and how they might rule. Guests: Sophia Cope, senior staff attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation Daphne Keller, director, Program on Platform Regulation at the Cyber Policy Center at Stanford Law School

Evelyn speaks with Moderated Content's Supreme Court correspondent Daphne Keller, director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center, to discuss their quick takes on the Supreme Court oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google.

Evelyn speaks with Moderated Content's Supreme Court correspondent Daphne Keller, director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center, to discuss their quick takes on the Supreme Court oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google.

On February 14, the Brookings Institution hosted an event on the upcoming Supreme Court oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh—two cases that could potentially reshape the internet. The Court is set to hear arguments in both cases next week, on February 21 and 22. Depending on how the justices rule, Gonzalez could result in substantial changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the bedrock legal protection on which the internet is built. For today's podcast, we're bringing you audio of that discussion. Lawfare senior editor Quinta Jurecic moderated a panel that included Hany Farid, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, with a joint appointment in electrical engineering & computer sciences and the School of Information; Daphne Keller, the director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford University's Cyber Policy Center; Lawfare senior editor Alan Rozenshtein; and Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court announced it was putting off hearing a pair of highly anticipated cases that could fundamentally change social media as we know it The cases concern laws in Florida and Texas, pushed by conservatives in those states, which basically make it illegal for social media platforms to block or hide content – like say from a former president – even if the post violates the companies’ terms of service. Both laws have been blocked from taking effect while the rest of the country waits for the high court to weigh in. Marketplace’s Meghan McCarty Carino spoke with Daphne Keller, director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center, about why these cases could be consequential.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court announced it was putting off hearing a pair of highly anticipated cases that could fundamentally change social media as we know it The cases concern laws in Florida and Texas, pushed by conservatives in those states, which basically make it illegal for social media platforms to block or hide content – like say from a former president – even if the post violates the companies’ terms of service. Both laws have been blocked from taking effect while the rest of the country waits for the high court to weigh in. Marketplace’s Meghan McCarty Carino spoke with Daphne Keller, director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center, about why these cases could be consequential.

We will be talking with Sascha Pallenberg. He is, inter alia, Chief Awareness Officer at https://aware-theplatform.com, host of https://www.metacheles.de, Ex-Head of Digital Transformation Daimler and Founder Mobilegeeks. We will talk about #Mastodon, how it works and what it makes interesting and why this is or is not an answer to Platforms such as #Twitter and their (European) regulation. Links: https://mastodon.social/@pallenberg https://www.saschapallenberg.com/content https://www.metacheles.de/

This week, two cases headed to the Supreme Court that could change the internet as we know it. On this week's On the Media, a look at the legal gray areas of how news gets shared online. Plus, how one reporter's prolific coverage of Trump earned her friends and enemies alike.  1. Daphne Keller [@daphnek], director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford University's Cyber Policy Center, on how two new Supreme Court cases may reshape social media as we know it. Listen. 2. Lachlan Cartwright [@LachCartwright], editor at large at the Daily Beast, on the recent lawsuits plaguing Fox News, and how they reveal glimpses of a future news empire. Listen. 3. Maggie Haberman [@maggieNYT], senior political correspondent for the New York Times, on her extensive reporting on Donald Trump, and why it has inspired strong reactions in journalistic circles. Listen. 3. Dave Enrich [@davidenrich], the business investigations editor at The New York Times, on how Big Law attorneys can still fly under the media's radar. Listen.  

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.

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.

Abstract from the paper we discuss with the author during the episode: Digital platforms have disrupted many sectors but have not yet visibly transformed highly regulated industries. This study of Big Tech entry in healthcare and education explores how platforms have begun to enter highly regulated industries systematically and effectively. We present a 4-stage process model of platform entry, which we term as “digital colonization”: (1) provision of data infrastructure services to regulated incumbents; (2) data capture in the highly regulated industry; (3) provision of data-driven insights; (4) design and commercialization of new products and services. We clarify platforms' sources of competitive advantage in highly regulated industries and conclude with managerial and policy recommendations.

Prof. Lance Bennett, Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Communication at the University of Washington, discusses the types of principled values that should guide platform regulation. We reflect on the disruptive ethos of tech companies and what that means for democracy. We also discuss theories of capitalism, recent changes in data privacy and third-party tracking, as well as the connection between digital technologies and protest parties. The article we discuss in the episode is Killing the Golden Goose: A Framework for Regulating Disruptive Technologies. 

While the U.S. Congress has been doing hearing after hearing with tech executives that include a lot of yelling and not much progress, Europe has been quietly working away on some major tech regulations. Last month, it reached agreement on the content moderation piece of this package: the Digital Services Act. It's sweeping in scope and likely to have effects far beyond Europe. This week on Arbiters of Truth, our series on the online information ecosystem, Evelyn Douek sat down with Daphne Keller, the director of the Program on Platform Regulation at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, to get the rundown. What exactly is in the act? What does she like and what doesn't she? And how will the internet look different once it comes into force?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

While the U.S. Congress has been doing hearing after hearing with tech executives that include a lot of yelling and not much progress, Europe has been quietly working away on some major tech regulations. Last month, it reached agreement on the content moderation piece of this package: the Digital Services Act. It's sweeping in scope and likely to have effects far beyond Europe. This week on Arbiters of Truth, our series on the online information ecosystem, Evelyn Douek sat down with Daphne Keller, the director of the Program on Platform Regulation at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, to get the rundown. What exactly is in the act? What does she like and what doesn't she? And how will the internet look different once it comes into force? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week, The Periphery talks to Daphne Keller, law professor and Director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center. We discuss why content moderation is so hard to get right from a platform perspective and just how little we *really* know about how these platforms work. Finally, we feel compelled to administer a content warning: this episode is ill-suited for those that still believe in Santa Clause. Leave us an honest review, subscribe, and send us any ideas or feedback that you'd like to share at theperipherypodcast@gmail.com. And be sure to become a Conversationalist on our Patreon if you are eager to support our efforts to diversify tech. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this talk, Jens Pohlmann compares the discourse about the regulation of social media platforms and its effect on freedom of expression in Germany and the United States. Drawing on computational methods, he analyzes the discussion about a German anti-hate speech law called the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) and the debate about a reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the United States in different media environments (IT-blogs, newspapers, social media). Ultimately, he considers the extent to which cultural, historical, and political differences between these two liberal democracies inform the present transatlantic debate about the restriction of content online and the regulation of social media platforms, as well as potential impacts on the evolving digital public sphere. Jens Pohlmann is a Research Associate at the Centre for Media, Communication & Information Research (ZeMKI) at the University of Bremen. He received his Ph.D. from Stanford University in 2017 and focuses his research on the internet policy discourse in Germany and the United States. His first book, The Creation of an Avant-Garde Brand: Heiner Müller's Self-Presentation in the German Public Sphere is to be published this fall.

Guests explain how in the case of platform regulation, the United States and the European Union have converged despite different perspectives.Jana Gooth (policy advisor to European Parliament Member Alexandra Geese)Jeff Jarvis (professor of journalism at the City University of New York)Julian Jaursch (project director at the Stiftung Neue Verantwortung) Hosted and produced by Nathan Crist. Edited and produced by Stefano Montali. Find out more about Are We Europe  and sign up for our newsletter. To support our mission of reporting on border-breaking stories across the continent, consider becoming a Member. 

On this episode of Arbiters of Truth, the Lawfare Podcast's miniseries on our online information ecosystem, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Daphne Keller, the director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center and an expert on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the statute that shields internet platforms from civil liability for third-party content on their websites. The statute has been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans, and both President Trump and President Biden separately called for its repeal. So what should we expect in terms of potential revision of 230 during the current Congress? What does Daphne think about the various proposals on the table? And how is it that so many proposals to reform 230 would be foiled by that pesky First Amendment? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

From the flow of news to the financial market, our lives are influenced on a wide variety of levels by the use and impact of platforms. How do these platforms work and is it possible to regulate them? Are there counterforces against their sphere of influence?

On October 7th, Tech Policy Press hosted a mini-conference called Reconciling Social Media and Democracy. While various solutions to problems at the intersection of social media and democracy are under consideration, from regulation to antitrust action, some experts are enthusiastic about the opportunity to create a new social media ecosystem that relies less on centrally managed platforms like Facebook and more on decentralized, interoperable services and components.  The first discussion at the event took on the notion of ‘middleware' for content moderation, and featured: Dr. Francis Fukuyama, Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), Mosbacher Director of FSI's Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law, and Director of Stanford's Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy.  Dr. Nathalie Maréchal, a writer, researcher and activist working at the intersection of internet policy and human rights advocacy who is Senior Policy & Partnerships Manager at Ranking Digital Rights, a non-profit research initiative housed at New America's Open Technology Institute. Daphne Keller, who directs the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center and is a Lecturer at Stanford Law School; And Richard Reisman, an entrepreneur, investor and writer, including at Tech Policy Press, where he has written about decentralizing social media.

We've got a three part jumbo show today. First, we'll dive in to the results of the annual Freedom on the Net report from Freedom House with Allie Funk, Senior Research Analyst for Technology and Democracy at Freedom House. Then, we're going to look at one place where internet freedoms are at risk- Canada, where a new proposal to regulate online harms looms- with Michael Geist, Professor of Law and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa and Daphne Keller, who directs the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center. And then, we're going to talk about the complexity of generating policies for content management on social media- and how a well-crafted multi-stakeholder approach can help- with Chris Riley, senior fellow of Internet Governance at the R Street Institute, a think thank in Washington D.C.

Wissenswertes zu Digital Services Act und Digital Markets Act - garniert mit aktueller Literatur und neuen Entscheidungen unserer geschätzten Zivilgerichte. (01:08) Aktuelle Gesetzgebung: Entwurf für einen Digital Services Act Entwurf für einen Digital Markets Act Katharina Kaesling: Evolution statt Revolution der Plattformregulierung, ZUM 2021, 177-184 Christoph Busch und Vanessa Mak: Putting the Digital Services Act in Context: Bridging the Gap Between EU Consumer Law and Platform Regulation, EuCML 2021, 109-115 Heike Schweitzer: The Art to Make Gatekeeper Positions Contestable and the Challenge to Know What Is Fair: A Discussion of the Digital Markets Act Proposal, ZEuP 2021, 503-544 Jürgen Basedow: Das Rad neu erfunden: Zum Vorschlag für einen Digital Markets Act, ZEuP 217-226 Fiona Savary: Regulierung von Gatekeeper-Plattformen, RDi 2021, 117-123 Rupprecht Podszun, Philipp Bongartz und Sarah Langenstein: The Digital Markets Act: Moving from Competition Law to Regulation for Large Gatekeepers, EuCML 2021, 60-67 (15:35) Aktuelle Literatur: Jean Mohamed: Die Reform des Personengesellschaftsrechts, JuS 2021, 820-826 Sophia Schwemmer: Dezentrale (autonome) Organisationen, AcP 221 (2021), 555-595 Martin Fries: De minimis curat mercator: Legal Tech wird Gesetz, NJW 2021, 2537-2541 (19:08) Aktuelle Rechtsprechung: Pflichtteilsentzug aus unklaren Gründen: LG Frankenthal v. 11. März 2021, 8 O 308/20, juris Kleiner Schadensersatz im Abgasskandal: BGH v. 6. Juli 2021, VI ZR 40/20, Volltext Amtsermittlung zur Prozessfähigkeit: BGH v. 8. Juli 2021, III ZR 344/20, Volltext

In this episode, I'm talking with Sukhnidh Kaur about a range of tech policy issues - from data governance, platform regulation, free speech and private power, and most importantly - about her work as the Digital Literacy fellow at the Internet Freedom Foundation. If you're buzzing in and around the Indian tech policy scene, chances are that you've seen Sukhnidh's brilliant explainer videos about complex legal and technological issues which she did on behalf of IFF. We talk about how she broke down these complex issues into accessible chunks of media, how memes can help generate awareness, and why we need people other than lawyers in Indian tech policy. In the later half of our conversation, we talk about how she approached these issues of tech policy coming from a space of Instagram influencing, about how the platform i.e. Instagram itself is evolving, and about how can organizations cultivate sustained change making movements. Sukhnidh is on twitter as @skhndh. References: 1. Sukhnidh's Privacy 101 explainer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykl8bcxFdxo&t=21s&ab_channel=InternetFreedomFoundation 2. Anja Kovack's piece on Identity and data: https://deepdives.in/when-our-bodies-become-data-where-does-that-leave-us-906674f6a969?gi=c62f48e15b67 3. Sukhnidh's Medium page: https://sukhnidh.medium.com/

Even among people who recognize the problems with holding platforms liable for user speech, there's an understandable temptation to treat the act of content amplification and recommendation differently, since that's something the platforms do themselves. While you can see the logic to this idea, the fact is it's just as difficult and fraught with problems as other intermediary liability proposals. This week, we're joined by frequent guest Daphne Keller, Director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center, to discuss her recent paper on the subject and why regulating amplification isn't the simple solution it might sound like. "Amplification and Its Discontents" by Daphne Keller: https://knightcolumbia.org/content/amplification-and-its-discontents Separately, this is the first time we've had a sponsor for the podcast! The Pessimists Aloud podcast is sponsoring today's episode. It's a new offering from the Pessimists Archive Twitter feed, which finds old articles that are skeptical of technology, which in retrospect turned out to be incorrect. The podcast takes those articles and has them artistically read (in an old-timey voice) aloud. We think fans of Techdirt will certainly enjoy the Pessimists Aloud podcast: https://anchor.fm/pessimistsaloud

This episode is in two parts. Both get at hard problems in how to deal with technology companies- first, around the regulation of algorithmic amplification on social media, and second, around competition. On algorithms, we hear from Daphne Keller, who directs the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center. Daphne recently published an essay, Amplification and Its Discontents: Why regulating the reach of online content is hard, on the website of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. On competition, we take a tour of five new bills to rein in the big tech companies that were just put forward in Congress with Hal Singer, a PhD economist and Managing Director of the firm Econ One. Hal is an expert in antitrust, consumer protection, and regulation. Hal has researched, published, and testified on competition-related issues, providing expert economic and policy advice to regulatory agencies in the United States and Canada, as well as before congressional committees.

This episode features two segments focusing on the decision by the Facebook Oversight Board on Donald Trump's account. First we hear a panel discussion hosted by Stanford's Cyber Policy Center and moderated by Stanford Law professor Nathaniel Persily. The panel features two members of the Facebook Oversight board- Michael McConnell, director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, and Julie Owono, an international human rights lawyer. The others on the panel include Marietje Schaake, international director of policy at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center and international policy fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence who previously served as a member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands; Renee DiResta, research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory; Alex Stamos, director of the Observatory, a professor at the Center for International Security and Cooperation, and former chief security officer at Facebook; and Daphne Keller, who directs the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center.  Then, we hear reactions to the Oversight Board from Erin Shields, a National Field Organizer at MediaJustice, a grassroots movement for a more just and participatory media that fights for racial, economic, and gender justice in a digital age; and Katy Glenn Bass, the Research Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.

This episode features a lively (and—fair warning—long) interview with Daphne Keller, Director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford University's Cyber Policy Center. We explore themes from her recent paper on regulation of online speech. It turns out that more or less everyone has an ability to restrict users' speech online, and pretty much no one has both authority and an interest in fostering free-speech values. Conservatives may be discriminated against, but so are Black Lives Matter activists. I serve up one solution to biased moderation after another, and Daphne methodically shoots them down. Transparency? None of the companies is willing, and the government may have a constitutional problem forcing them to disclose how they make their moderation decisions. Competition law? A long haul, and besides, most users like a moderated Internet experience. Regulation? Only if we take the First Amendment back to the heyday of broadcast regulation. As a particularly egregious example of foreign governments and platforms ganging up to censor Americans, we touch on the Europe Court of Justice's insufferable decision encouraging the export of European defamation law to the U.S.—with an extra margin of censorship to keep the platform from any risk of liability. I offer to risk my Facebook account to see if that's already happening. In the news, the FISA follies take center stage, as the March 15 deadline for reauthorizing important counterterrorism authorities draws near. No one has a good solution. Matthew Heiman explains that another kick-the-can scenario remains a live option. And Nick Weaver summarizes the problems that the PCLOB found with the FISA call detail record program. My take: The program failed because it was imposed on NSA by libertarian ideologues who had no idea how it would work in practice and who now want to blame NSA for their own shortsightedness. Another week, another couple of artificial intelligence ethics codes: The two most recent ones come from DOD and … the Pope? Mark MacCarthy sees a lot to like. I offer my quick and dirty CTRL-F “bias” test for whether the codes are serious or flaky, and both fail. In China news, Matthew covers China's ever-spreading censorship regime—now reaching Twitter users whose accounts are blocked by the Great Firewall. We also ask whether and how much the U.S. “name and shame” campaign has actually reduced Chinese cyberespionage. And whether China is stealing tech from universities for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks—that's where the IP is. Nick recounts with undisguised glee the latest tribulations suffered by Clearview and its facial recognition system: Its app has been banned from Android and Apple, and both its customers and its data collection methods have been doxed. Mark notes the success of threats to boycott Pakistan on the part of Facebook, Google and Twitter. I wonder if that will simply incentivize Pakistan to drive its social media ecosystem toward the Chinese giants. Nick gives drug dealers a lesson in how not to store the codes for €53.6 million in Bitcoin; or is he offering a lesson in what to say to the police if you want that €53.6 million waiting for you when you get out of prison? Finally, in a few quick hits, we cover new developments in past stories: It turns out, to the surprise of no one, that removing a GPS tracking device from your car isn't theft. West Virginia has apparently recovered from a fit of insanity and now does not plan to allow voting by insecure app. And the FCC is taking it slow in its investigation of mobile carriers for selling customer location data; now we know who'll be charged (pretty much everyone) and how much it will cost them ($200 million), but we still don't know the theory or whether the whole inquiry is going to kill off legitimate uses of location data.   Download the 302nd Episode (mp3). Take our listener poll at steptoe.com/podcastpoll! You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed! As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of the firm.