https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b6df958f8370af3217d4178/t/60187b5f45762e708708c8e9/1612217185240/NYU+False+Accusation_2.pdf
This report is important because it outlines the direction TPTB are moving with social media. Note that it approaches social media regulation from the standpoint that conservatives have NOT been censored. Also worth noting is that the study was funded by Craigslist founder, Craig Newmark who funds a number of Globalist initiatives.
The "acknowledgements" speak for themselves:
Sarah Brandt of NewsGuard, Sam Clark of Transparency Tube, Renée DiResta of the Stanford Internet Observatory, Eric Effron of NewsGuard, Dipayan Ghosh of the Digital Platforms and Democracy Project at Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center,
Eric Goldman of Santa Clara University School of Law, Jennifer Grygiel of Syracuse University, Jess Hemerly of Google, Justin Hendrix of Tech Policy Press, Mark Ledwich of Transparency Tube, Filippo Menczer of Indiana University, Benedict Nicholson of NewsWhip, James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute, Matt Perault of the Center on Science & Technology Policy at Duke University, Nick Pickles of Twitter, Neil Potts of Facebook, Naomi Shiffman of CrowdTangle/Facebook, Francesca Tripodi of the University of North Carolina.
RECOMMENDATIONS IN BRIEF
For the Social Media Industry
Provide greater disclosure for content moderation actions. The platforms should give an easily understood explanation every time they sanction a post or account, as well as a readily available means to appeal enforcement actions. Greater transparency—such as that which Twitter and Facebook offered when they took action against President Trump in January—would help to defuse claims of political bias, while clarifying the boundaries of acceptable user conduct.
Offer users a choice among content moderation algorithms. Users would have greater agency if they were offered a menu of choices among algorithms. Under this system, each user would be given the option of retaining the existing moderation algorithm or choosing one that screens out harmful content more vigorously. The latter option also would provide enhanced engagement by human moderators operating under more restrictive policies. If users had the ability to select from among several systems, they would be empowered to choose an algorithm that reflects their values and preferences.
Undertake more vigorous, targeted human moderation of influential accounts. To avoid high-profile moderation mistakes, the platforms should significantly increase the number of full-time employees working directly for them who would help to create a more rigorous human-led moderation channel for the most influential accounts. To supervise this and other important issues related to policing content, we recommend that the platforms each hire a senior executive—a content overseer—who reports directly to the CEO or COO.
Release more data for researchers. More granular disclosure would allow academics and civil society researchers to identify enforcement patterns, such as whether content is being removed for ideological reasons. This greater transparency should include the nature of any content that is removed, the particular rule(s) a post violated, how the platform became aware of noncompliance (user report versus algorithmic moderation), and how any appeals were resolved.
For the Biden Administration
Pursue a constructive reform agenda for social media. This will require the federal government to press Facebook, Google, and Twitter to improve content policies and their enforcement, even as the government pursues pending antitrust lawsuits against Facebook and Google. The industry, for its part, must strive with urgency to do a better job of protecting users and society at large from harmful content—progress that can’t wait for the resolution of what might be years-long antitrust court battles.
Work with Congress to update Section 230. The controversial law should be amended so that its liability shield is conditional, based on social media companies’ acceptance of a range of new responsibilities related to policing content. One of the new platform obligations could be ensuring that algorithms involved in content ranking and recommendation not favor sensationalistic or unreliable material in pursuit of user engagement.
Create a new Digital Regulatory Agency. The false claim of anti-conservative bias has contributed to widespread distrust of the platforms’ willingness and ability to govern their sites. A new independent authority, charged with enforcing the responsibilities of a revised Section 230, could begin to rebuild that eroded trust. As an alternative, expanded jurisdiction and funding for social media oversight could be directed to an existing agency such as the Federal Trade Commission or Federal Communications Commission.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b6df958f8370af3217d4178/t/60187b5f45762e708708c8e9/1612217185240/NYU+False+Accusation_2.pdf
This report is important because it outlines the direction TPTB are moving with social media. Note that it approaches social media regulation from the standpoint that conservatives have NOT been censored. Also worth noting is that the study was funded by Craigslist founder, Craig Newmark who funds a number of Globalist initiatives.
The "acknowledgements" speak for themselves:
Sarah Brandt of NewsGuard, Sam Clark of Transparency Tube, Renée DiResta of the Stanford Internet Observatory, Eric Effron of NewsGuard, Dipayan Ghosh of the Digital Platforms and Democracy Project at Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center,
Eric Goldman of Santa Clara University School of Law, Jennifer Grygiel of Syracuse University, Jess Hemerly of Google, Justin Hendrix of Tech Policy Press, Mark Ledwich of Transparency Tube, Filippo Menczer of Indiana University, Benedict Nicholson of NewsWhip, James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute, Matt Perault of the Center on Science & Technology Policy at Duke University, Nick Pickles of Twitter, Neil Potts of Facebook, Naomi Shiffman of CrowdTangle/Facebook, Francesca Tripodi of the University of North Carolina.
># **RECOMMENDATIONS IN BRIEF**
>**For the Social Media Industry**
>1. **Provide greater disclosure for content moderation actions.** The platforms should give an easily understood explanation every time they sanction a post or account, as well as a readily available means to appeal enforcement actions. Greater transparency—such as that which Twitter and Facebook offered when they took action against President Trump in January—would help to defuse claims of political bias, while clarifying the boundaries of acceptable user conduct.
>2. **Offer users a choice among content moderation algorithms.** Users would have greater agency if they were offered a menu of choices among algorithms. Under this system, each user would be given the option of retaining the existing moderation algorithm or choosing one that screens out harmful content more vigorously. The latter option also would provide enhanced engagement by human moderators operating under more restrictive policies. If users had the ability to select from among several systems, they would be empowered to choose an algorithm that reflects their values and preferences.
>3. **Undertake more vigorous, targeted human moderation of influential accounts.** To avoid high-profile moderation mistakes, the platforms should significantly increase the number of full-time employees working directly for them who would help to create a more rigorous human-led moderation channel for the most influential accounts. To supervise this and other important issues related to policing content, we recommend that the platforms each hire a senior executive—a content overseer—who reports directly to the CEO or COO.
>4. **Release more data for researchers.** More granular disclosure would allow academics and civil society researchers to identify enforcement patterns, such as whether content is being removed for ideological reasons. This greater transparency should include the nature of any content that is removed, the particular rule(s) a post violated, how the platform became aware of noncompliance (user report versus algorithmic moderation), and how any appeals were resolved.
>**For the Biden Administration**
>5. **Pursue a constructive reform agenda for social media**. This will require the federal government to press Facebook, Google, and Twitter to improve content policies and their enforcement, even as the government pursues pending antitrust lawsuits against Facebook and Google. The industry, for its part, must strive with urgency to do a better job of protecting users and society at large from harmful content—progress that can’t wait for the resolution of what might be years-long antitrust court battles.
>6. **Work with Congress to update Section 230.** The controversial law should be amended so that its liability shield is conditional, based on social media companies’ acceptance of a range of new responsibilities related to policing content. One of the new platform obligations could be ensuring that algorithms involved in content ranking and recommendation not favor sensationalistic or unreliable material in pursuit of user engagement.
>7. **Create a new Digital Regulatory Agency.** The false claim of anti-conservative bias has contributed to widespread distrust of the platforms’ willingness and ability to govern their sites. A new independent authority, charged with enforcing the responsibilities of a revised Section 230, could begin to rebuild that eroded trust. As an alternative, expanded jurisdiction and funding for social media oversight could be directed to an existing agency such as the Federal Trade Commission or Federal Communications Commission.
(post is archived)