Discussion

• @normative Julian Sanchez on x

  Obviously, yes. The “regulate the algorithms” fad generates interest for the same reason “reform 230” does: People want to impose clearly unconstitutional policies, but bank shot them through an indirect mechanism to pretend that's not what they're doing. https://twitter.com/...

• @jeffjarvis Jeff Jarvis on x

  “When we tweak protections against intermediary liability, you often have companies erring on the side of censorship and removing political, social and religious speech, particularly of those in marginalized communities.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...

• @brendannyhan Brendan Nyhan on x

  Regulating algorithms is regulating speech. There's no way around this. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... https://twitter.com/...

• @counteringcrime Acco on x

  While there should be more transparency on how algorithms work, tech firms should still be responsible for searching for, archiving & reporting to law enforcement content of serious crimes - human trafficking, drug trafficking, child exploitation, etc. https://www.washingtonpost.…

• @willoremus Will Oremus on x

  Facebook's algorithm is a problem, critics agree. But how to fix it? I wrote in depth about the hot new idea in tech policy—regulating social media algorithms—and why it's both intuitively appealing and very hard to get right. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...

• @wexler Nu Wexler on x

  “What we've seen around the world is when we tweak protections against intermediary liability you often have companies erring on the side of censorship and removing political, social and religious speech, particularly of those in marginalized communities.” https://www.washingtonp…

• @iethics @iethics on x

  “One of the more creative approaches to the #algorithm issue focuses on giving #socialmedia users the power to choose their own ranking system”: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... #ethics #law #internet #gov #business

• @fightfortheftr @fightfortheftr on x

  ❤️Fight's @evan_greer in @washingtonpost today explaining why attempts to regulate Facebook's algorithms by tinkering with Section 230 would do more harm than good. Instead: pass a data privacy law strong enough to kill FB's surveillance driven biz model https://www.washingtonpos…

• @freedomonthenet @freedomonthenet on x

  Our own @alfunk spoke with @washingtonpost's @WillOremus➡️A combination of stronger privacy protections, competition policies that provide more user choice, & transparency requirements can help address the tech industry's outsized power. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...

• @alfunk Allie Funk on x

  Pleasure to speak with @WillOremus about why I think Section 230 reform isn't the best way to address online harms & would disproportionately impact marginalized voices. Instead, let's look at privacy law, competition policy, & meaningful transparency. https://www.washingtonpost.…

• @davidclinchnews David Clinch on x

  @WillOremus Really excellent overview of the issues at hand Will. Well done. I would suggest an approach that removes any concerns about 1A or changing Section 230 and also puts regulation on how to deal with harmful content, algorithms and data protection on separate but connect…

• @willoremus Will Oremus on x

  @ho_ben well facebook knows it has control over how widely used that sort of option is. the fact that few people exercise it is partly a function of intentional design choices on facebook's part

• @dlberes @dlberes on x

  Here's a question though: Why should ~the discourse~ accept that a ranked News Feed is the only model for information distribution on a product like Facebook? It's something that bothered me about Clegg's statement over the weekend.

• @davidclinchnews David Clinch on x

  @WillOremus First step is a Harmful Content Transparency Act to put in place agreed standards, benchmarks and mandated, data-protected, transparency around harmful content, all agreed to by platforms, legislators and experts. This would allow for regulated auditing of platform re…

• @davidclinchnews David Clinch on x

  @WillOremus ...transparency reports around existing policies regarding harmful content in agreed categories. Regulators and experts could then audit research and reports and assess compliance against agreed standards and benchmarks. Data requests from regulators would be protecte…

• @evan_greer Evan Greer on x

  Thx for including my perspective here: I explain why I think attempting to regulate algorithmic amplification through a carveout in 230 would do more harm than good, and that instead lawmakers should pass a privacy law “strong enough to effectively kill this business model.” http…

• @ho_ben Ben Ho on x

  @WillOremus Ok read it now. Agreed that allowing competition in algorithms is a sensible solution but I doubt most consumers would bother. As you noted at the end Facebook allows users to switch now I imagine few do. You could force users to actively choose but I'm not sure that'…

• @donie Donie O'Sullivan on x

  When @szhang_ds left Facebook she posted a 7,800 word memo about the company on her personal website. Facebook got the site shut down. Facebook says the memo contained sensitive info. Watch the full interview here: https://www.cnn.com/... https://twitter.com/...

• @franceshaugen Frances Haugen on x

  I have accepted the invitation to brief the Facebook Oversight Board about what I learned while working there. Facebook has lied to the board repeatedly, and I am looking forward to sharing the truth with them.

• @jason_kint Jason Kint on x

  Warning: Although Facebook whistleblower's brave testimony continues to be important to understanding harms and prior cover-ups, a reminder it's not a “board” but a Facebook entity with comms led by a trusted lieutenant and former speechwriter for Facebook and Google's CEOs. 1/2 …

• @fightextremism CEP on x

  “On a social network with nearly 3 billion users, that algorithm arguably has more influence over what people read, watch and share online than any government or media mogul.” @willoremus reports: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...

• @omidyarnetwork @omidyarnetwork on x

  .@Facebook's algorithm prioritizes polarizing content b/c its business model relies on users engagement to drive its enormous profits. The toxic, corrosive algorithms that govern our lives will only change meaningfully when #bigtech's incentives change. https://www.washingtonpost…

• @anthony Anthony DeRosa on x

  Sophie was the original Facebook whistleblower, she came forward in Sept 2020: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/ ... https://twitter.com/...

• @anupamchander Anupam Chander on x

  This is a thorough piece by @WillOremus delving into the possibility of removing 230 immunity for the algorithms that companies use. A few thoughts. 1/ 🧵1/https://www.washingtonpost.c om/ ...

• @moorehn Spooky N. Gore on x

  Frances Haugen is choosing a really powerful tack here. If Facebook's executives have lied to the board, it opens the door for shareholder lawsuits and regulatory investigations. https://twitter.com/...

• @dhakatribune @dhakatribune on x

  Haugen provided documents used in a WSJ investigation and a Senate hearing on Instagram's harm to teenage girls https://www.dhakatribune.com/ ...

• @senblumenthal Richard Blumenthal on x

  Zuckerberg's dismissing & demeaning whistleblower Frances Haugen says more about him than her. He's hiding, she's bravely standing up. He's concealing facts, she's revealing them. https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @davidamichaels Dave Michaels on x

  Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen's claims don't look like a classic securities fraud case, but the SEC will feel pressure to investigate. https://www.wsj.com/... via @WSJ

• @paulwsj Paul Beckett on x

  Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen's claims don't look like classic securities fraud, but the SEC will feel pressure to investigate - latest smarts from ⁦@davidamichaels⁩ https://www.wsj.com/...