DOCSLIB.ORG

Models of Governance of Online Hate Speech

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Models of Governance of Online Hate Speech MODELS OF GOVERNANCE OF ONLINE HATE SPEECH On the emergence of collaborative governance and the challenges of giving redress to targets of online hate speech within a human rights PREMS 057220 framework in Europe Alexander Brown Models of Governance of Online Hate Speech On the emergence of collaborative governance and the challenges of giving redress to targets of online hate speech within a human rights framework in Europe Alexander Brown Council of Europe The opinions expressed in this work are the responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Council of Europe. All requests concerning the reproduction or translation of all or part of this document should be addressed to the Directorate of Communication (F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex or [email protected]). All other correspondence concerning this document should be addressed to the Directorate of Anti-Discrimination, Director General of Democracy Cover and layout: Documents and Publications Production Department (SPDP), Council of Europe Photo: Shutterstock This publication has not been copy-edited by the SPDP Editorial Unit to correct typographical and grammatical errors. © Council of Europe, May 2020 Online published by the Council of Europe 2 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 6 I. CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................. 8 A. Impetus for the study ....................................................................................................................... 8 (i) Demand for action ....................................................................................................................... 8 (ii) Standardization agenda............................................................................................................ 14 B. Wider background to the study ...................................................................................................... 17 (i) Emphasis on the importance of international human rights frameworks ................................... 17 (ii) Growing demands on Internet platforms to do their bit in tackling online hate speech ............. 19 (iii) Recognition of the diversity of Internet platforms ..................................................................... 25 (iv) Promotion of collaborative governance of online hate speech ................................................ 26 (v) Trade-offs at the heart of the governance of online hate speech ............................................. 28 C. What’s the point of Internet governance for online hate speech? .................................................. 30 (i) Three levels of governance: The moderation level, the oversight level and the regulatory level ...................................................................................................................................................... 30 (ii) Outcome-oriented versus process-oriented governance tools: The NetzDG Act in Germany and the Avia Bill in France as case studies ................................................................................... 32 (iii) Understanding the purpose or function of governance tools for online hate speech ............... 35 D. On the prima facie need for pluralism, disaggregation and integration within the governance of online hate speech ............................................................................................................................. 38 (i) Public content areas versus closed groups ............................................................................... 39 (ii) Different types of Internet platforms ......................................................................................... 40 (iii) Different kinds of content ......................................................................................................... 41 (iv) Differential reputational damage to Internet platforms ............................................................. 41 (v) Differing amounts, types and degrees of harmfulness of hate speech ..................................... 42 (vi) Pluralism of country contexts ................................................................................................... 44 (vii) Implications of diversity and pluralism for the governance of online hate speech .................. 44 E. Definitional Issues .......................................................................................................................... 46 F. Governance firewalls: Facebook’s Oversight Board as a case study ............................................ 52 G. Aims, scope and methods of the study .......................................................................................... 59 II. FIRST LEVEL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE: THE MODERATION LEVEL ................................63 A. Professionalised moderation.......................................................................................................... 63 B. Distributed moderation ................................................................................................................... 67 C. Pre-moderation by professional publishers of content ................................................................... 69 D. Facilitated user self-moderation ..................................................................................................... 70 E. Auto-moderation ............................................................................................................................ 71 F. Content management .................................................................................................................... 72 III. SECOND LEVEL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE: THE OVERSIGHT LEVEL ..............................74 A. Public consultation on content policies and moderation guidelines, processes and procedures ... 74 B. Internal appeals processes ............................................................................................................ 75 C. General recommendations from an independent supervisory council, steering committee or oversight board .................................................................................................................................. 77 D. Referrals of grey area or difficult cases to an independent supervisory council, steering committee or oversight board .............................................................................................................................. 78 E. Fully independent dispute resolution procedure or mediation process .......................................... 84 F. User rating system ......................................................................................................................... 85 IV. THIRD LEVEL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE: THE REGULATORY LEVEL ..............................86 A. Legal compliance ........................................................................................................................... 86 B. Voluntary code of practice ............................................................................................................. 90 3 C. Legal responsibility to remove unlawful hate speech enforced with fines ...................................... 95 (i) Exceptions from legal responsibilities in the case of journalistic content................................. 101 (ii) Exceptions from legal responsibility for Internet platforms that refer grey area cases to competent independent institutions and abide by the decisions .................................................. 102 (iii) Exemptions from liability for Internet platforms granted “responsible platform” status ........... 103 (iv) Leniency programmes that give Internet platforms reductions in fines if they fully cooperate with governmental authorities ...................................................................................................... 109 D. Legal responsibility not to over-remove lawful hate speech enforced with fines.......................... 110 E. Statutory duty of care and/or code of practice ............................................................................. 113 F. Special public prosecutor ............................................................................................................. 116 G. Bespoke criminal offences........................................................................................................... 120 H. Reform of sentencing guidelines ................................................................................................. 123 I. Special police unit ......................................................................................................................... 125 V. ON THE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF COLLABORATIVE APPROACHES TO THE GOVERNENCE OF ONLINE HATE SPEECH ..............................................................................126 A. Potential benefits of collaboration in the governance of online hate speech ............................... 127 B. Potential disbenefits of collaboration in the governance of online hate speech ........................... 129 (i) Challenges in collaboration between Internet platforms and trusted flaggers and monitoring bodies .........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Science of Diversity and the Impact of Implicit Bias
    The Science of Diversity and the Impact of Implicit Bias Hannah Valantine, MD NIH Chief Officer for Scientific Workforce Diversity ~ National Institutes of Health ~ / Office of the Director Scientific Workforce Diversity Use of This Module • This presentation presents information about scientific workforce diversity and factors that contribute to limiting diversity, including implicit bias • Viewing this presentation is not a substitute for broader efforts to reduce implicit bias and its negative outcomes on scientific career advancement • Please contact us with questions: [email protected] Presentation Outline • Why diversity? – Diverse is a driving force for excellence and innovation – Defining diversity – Lack of diversity in science: the evidence • Hurdles to diversity: Implicit bias – Pervasiveness of implicit bias – Evidence – Strategies for overcoming bias Why Diversity Matters Capitalizing on the Opportunity • Excellence, creativity, innovation • Broadening scope of inquiry - solutions to complex problems of health and disease • Impact of workforce diversity on health disparities • Ensuring fairness – Changing demographics – Leveraging the entire U.S. intellectual capital Capturing the Benefits of Diversity Identity is a Proxy for Cognitive Diversity *Underrepresented Thinking Populations in U.S. Language Ethnicity*Ethnicity Religion Style Biomedical, Clinical, Behavioral and Social Science Research Perspectives ExperiencesNationality* Nationality GeographyGender* Physical RaceRace* Culture Skills SocioeconomicGender Status*
    [Show full text]
  • Reform of the EU Liability Regime for Online Intermediaries
    Reform of the EU liability regime for online intermediaries Background on the forthcoming digital services act IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Author: Tambiama Madiega Members' Research Service PE 649.404 – May 2020 EN The E-commerce Directive, adopted in 2000, aims at harmonising minimum standards of liability for internet (online) intermediaries across the European Union (EU). Under the current EU legal framework, digital or online platforms are not legally responsible for hosting illegal content, but are required to remove such material once it is flagged. However, technologies and business models have evolved in the last 20 years and the EU liability framework struggles to capture liability issues raised by new actors, such as search engines, social networks and online marketplaces. Furthermore, societal challenges have changed the nature and scale of liability, with the development of a range of new harmful online practices, such as the dissemination of terrorist content online, the increasing use of platforms to distribute counterfeit products and the spreading of false or misleading news and online advertisements. The European Commission has pledged to present a new framework to increase and harmonise the responsibilities of online platforms. New EU legislation is expected in the forthcoming digital services act package, and this will set rules on how companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter will have to police illegal and possibly harmful content online. Against this background, this paper aims to (1) describe the current EU liability regime for online intermediaries set out under the E-commerce Directive; (2) highlight the implementation gaps that have been identified; and (3) present the main proposals for reforming such an online liability regime and the main policy questions that have been discussed so far.
    [Show full text]
  • E-Commerce Web Application Using Paypal Payment Gate- Way
    AKM Mahfuzul Haque E-COMMERCE WEB APPLICATION USING PAYPAL PAYMENT GATE- WAY Technology and Communication 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to thank God for showing me the way of my success. I am indebted to my parents (Mr. Karam Ali and Mrs. Khaleda Akhter) for their significant effort to support me all the way from my childhood until now. Their happiness is my suc- cess. My deepest gratitude goes to my thesis supervisor Dr. Ghodrat Moghadam- pour who has given his best to help me to complete my thesis. His guidance is excellent, and without his assistance, it would be quite difficult to fulfill my thesis. It is an honor to thank the Head of Degree Programme Dr. Seppo Mäkinen who is always friendly and helpful to me. It is my pleasure to thank all the teachers and staffs of Vaasa University of Applied Sciences who has made a great support for my whole study period. Haque AKM Mahfuzul May 2017 VAASAN AMMATTIKORKEAKOULU UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ABSTRACT Author AKM Mahfuzul Haque Title E-commerce Web Application Using PayPal Payment Gateway Year 2017 Language English Pages 82 Name of Supervisor Dr. Ghodrat Moghadampour The main idea of the thesis was to develop an E-commerce Web Application by using payment gateway (PayPal payment technology) for an online shop which was developed by ASP.NET framework (version 4.6.2) and Microsoft SQL server management studio, where a seller (Owner of the Web shop) will be able to put all the products in the online shop, and a customer who is a buyer will be able to buy items through online payment.This application has two different views: Public view and Administrator (in short Admin) view.
    [Show full text]
  • Free, Hateful, and Posted: Rethinking First Amendment Protection of Hate Speech in a Social Media World
    Boston College Law Review Volume 60 Issue 7 Article 6 10-30-2019 Free, Hateful, and Posted: Rethinking First Amendment Protection of Hate Speech in a Social Media World Lauren E. Beausoleil Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the First Amendment Commons, and the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation Lauren E. Beausoleil, Free, Hateful, and Posted: Rethinking First Amendment Protection of Hate Speech in a Social Media World, 60 B.C.L. Rev. 2100 (2019), https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol60/iss7/6 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FREE, HATEFUL, AND POSTED: RETHINKING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION OF HATE SPEECH IN A SOCIAL MEDIA WORLD Abstract: Speech is meant to be heard, and social media allows for exaggeration of that fact by providing a powerful means of dissemination of speech while also dis- torting one’s perception of the reach and acceptance of that speech. Engagement in online “hate speech” can interact with the unique characteristics of the Internet to influence users’ psychological processing in ways that promote violence and rein- force hateful sentiments. Because hate speech does not squarely fall within any of the categories excluded from First Amendment protection, the United States’ stance on hate speech is unique in that it protects it.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Factors in the Allocation of IP Addresses
    Economic factors in the allocation of IP addresses Dr. Milton Mueller, Syracuse University School of Information Studies, USA and XS4All Professor, Technische Universiteit Delft, Netherlands. With the assistance of Youngseek Kim, Ph.D. candidate, Syracuse University School of Information Studies 1 SUMMARY This study reviews the economic rationale for IP allocation policies and argues that conservation is still a valid concern for IPv6 due to the large basic unit of IPv6 allocation. According to the study, current RIR policies provide few incentives to reclaim unused or under-utilized resources. The study concludes that it is possible to have a much more liberal policy for the initial stage of IPv6 allocation, provided it is associated with efficient reclamation policies and incentives, which incentives should be economic. After analysis of the IPv6 fee structure charged by the RIRs and brief discussion of the routing scalability issue of IPv6, the paper proposes a Transferable Address Block Lease (TABL) model as a market-oriented allocation mechanism. The TABL model employs two economic techniques: (1) fees related to the size of the IPv6 address blocks and (2) transferability. TABLs would be an additional option, not a replacement for needs-based allocations, and confined to the mid range of IP address blocks (/48 - /32). The paper discusses auctions as a method of making initial allocations and concludes that they would not be advisable. The chief advantage of TABL is that it makes addresses available to anyone who wants them in the quantity they need, thus increases end users’ control over their own network destiny and reduce their switching costs to change providers.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation of the Digital Sector
    EU-US EXPLAINER July 2021 Regulation of the digital sector With online platforms and markets enmeshed in our societies and economies, the need to revisit and update existing digital regulations is becoming increasingly apparent. The debate around these reforms in the US, the EU and elsewhere touches on fundamental questions of privacy, transparency and free speech and the dynamic between private firms and governmental oversight is complex. While online platforms play a salient role in daily life, both the US and the EU continue to operate with regulations dating back over a generation. As significant challenges regarding illegal and harmful online content and moderation liability continue to have real world effects today, both the EU and the US are currently considering precedent-setting updates. Background: Existing EU and US digital regulations The close trading ties between the US and the EU in the area of digitally enabled services have been key to the growth of the digital economy. With 450 million users, the EU is one of the most profitable markets for US tech firms. This has enabled the US to export information and communications technology (ICT) services worth US$31 billion to the EU, with ICT-enabled services potentially adding another US$196 billion. Digital regulation has proved challenging, however, as the seminal laws governing conduct and liability of online platforms in both the EU and US are over 20 years old, with few updates over the years. In the US, a crucial piece of governing legislation is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996. Section 230 consists of two primary elements: the first removing liability for third-party content on platforms and the second encouraging platforms to self-moderate.
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling User Reputation in Wikipedia
    Modeling User Reputation in Wikis Sara Javanmardi, Cristina Lopes and Pierre Baldi Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences, University of California, Irvine, USA {sjavanma,lopes,pfbaldi}@ics.uci.edu Abstract Collaborative systems available on the Web allow millions of users to share information through a growing collection of tools and platforms such as wikis, blogs, and shared forums. By their very nature, these systems contain resources and information with different quality levels. The open na- ture of these systems, however, makes it difficult for users to determine the quality of the available information and the reputation of its providers. Here, we first parse and mine the entire English Wikipedia history pages in order to extract detailed user edit patterns and statistics. We then use these patterns and statistics to derive three computational models of a user’s reputation. Finally, we validate these models using ground–truth Wikipedia data associated with vandals and adminis- trators. When used as a classifier, the best model produces an area under the ROC curve of 0.98. Furthermore, we assess the reputation predictions generated by the models on other users, and show that all three models can be used efficiently for predicting user behavior in Wikipedia. Keywords: Wiki, Reputation, Reliability, Wiki Mining, Wikipedia, Web 2.0 1 Introduction The last few years have seen a substantial growth in user–generated Web content. Simple editing interfaces encourage users to create and maintain repositories of shared content. Online information repositories such as wikis, forums and blogs have increased the participation of the general public in the production of web content through the notion of social software [1, 2, 3].
    [Show full text]
  • Public Consultation on the Telecommunication Regulatory
    Public consultation on the Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of Bahrain’s proposed Position Paper on the Licensing Approach to Internet Protocol (“IP”) Based Voice and Messaging Services in the Kingdom of Bahrain Consultation Report 20 January 2021 Ref: LAD/0121/009 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Bahrain (“Authority”) has previously issued two Position Papers which set out the Authority's approach to the regulation of Voice over IP ("VoIP") services under the existing licensing regime under the Telecommunications Law, namely the: (a) Position Paper on the carriage of Voice calls using the Internet Protocol (IP) dated 17 April 2004 (MOU/DC/268) (" 2004 VoIP Paper"); and (b) Position Paper No.1 of 2007 on Regulation of Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") Services dated 30 May 2007 (LAU/0504/054) ("2007 VoIP Paper"). 1.2 Since the 2004 VoIP Paper and 2007 VoIP Paper were published, there has been substantial growth in the use of over-the-top ("OTT") voice and messaging services in the Kingdom of Bahrain, which are often utilised on mobile phones. 1.3 The purpose of the proposed Position Paper is to update the Authority's position in relation to IP-based or OTT voice and messaging services. 1.4 The purpose of the Consultation was to invite comments from interested parties on the Authority’s proposed Position Paper. The deadline for responses was 16:00 on 20 August 2020. 1.5 The Authority received responses from Batelco, STC, Zain, Kalaam and Etisalcom. 1.6 The comments received from Batelco, STC, Zain, Kalaam and Etisalcom are summarised in Annex 1 to this Consultation Report, as are the Authority’s responses to each comment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Issue of Diversity and Multiculturalism in Japan
    Jie Qi & Sheng Ping Zhang The Issue of Diversity and Multiculturalism in Japan THE ISSUE OF DIVERSITY AND MULTICULTURALISM IN JAPAN Jie Qi Utsunomiya University, Japan Sheng Ping Zhang Meijo University, Japan Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association March 24-29, 2008 New York In Session: Internationalization and Globalization in the Curriculum 1 Jie Qi & Sheng Ping Zhang The Issue of Diversity and Multiculturalism in Japan THE ISSUE OF DIVERSITY AND MULTICULTYRALISM IN JAPAN The purpose of this paper is to problematize that which has been taken for granted about the notion of multiculturalism in Japan. Multiculturalism is a novel issue in Japan. As the Japanese government started to promote “internationalization” since 1980’s, slogans such as “international exchange,” “cultural exchange,” “understanding of other cultures,” etc, have become the most popular hackneyed expressions among policy maker and educators. This paper demonstrates that the notion of multiculturalism in Japan is intricately and deeply embedded in Japanese society, Japanese culture and the Japanese educational system and that this type of multiculturalism excludes ethnic groups which have lived in Japan since old times. Firstly, the intention in this study is to interrupt the assumptions about homogeneous nation in Japanese educational discourse as have been accepted since the end of World War II. I assert that Japan is not homogeneous nation rather a society with diverse cultural groups. Secondly, this paper traces the path of the past notion of multiculturalism as embodied in the Japanese political, social and cultural conditions. In undertaking this I first look at the way cultural studies emerged in the 1980’s which created a new image of cultural studies.
    [Show full text]
  • European Union Update: the Digital Services Act
    European Union Update: The Digital Services Act ICANN Government & Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) Engagement Elena Plexida GE-004 15 July 2020 ICANN | European Union Update: The Digital Services Act | July 2020 | 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword 3 What is the Digital Services Act? 4 Why a DSA? 4 What will the DSA likely contain? 5 How are ICANN and the ICANN community affected? 6 Next steps 6 ICANN | European Union Update: The Digital Services Act | July 2020 | 2 Foreword This paper provides an update and analysis of the Digital Services Act (DSA) initiative launched by the European Union (EU). The DSA initiative was identified in the first of the series of the ICANN Government & Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) Engagement papers capturing EU policy updates as an area of potential relevance to the ICANN community and to ICANN’s technical role in the Internet ecosystem.1 This paper broadly explains the initiative to date and its potential impact. It is worth noting that the European Commission launched a public consultation on the DSA initiative that will remain open until 8 September 2020.2 ICANN org will submit a contribution to the open consultation and encourages the community to take this opportunity to contribute as well. ICANN organization will continue to monitor the DSA initiative and will provide updates as relevant developments unfold. 1 https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/eu-policy-update-03apr20-en.pdf 2 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/consultation-digital-services-act- package ICANN | European
    [Show full text]
  • The State of Europe Disruption, Disorder and Division: Crunch Time for Europe
    WINTER 2016 THE STATE OF EUROPE DISRUPTION, DISORDER AND DIVISION: CRUNCH TIME FOR EUROPE REPORT In partnership with With the support of WINTER 2016 THE STATE OF EUROPE DISRUPTION, DISORDER AND DIVISION: CRUNCH TIME FOR EUROPE REPORT This report reflects the roundtable rapporteur’s understanding of the views expressed by participants. These views are not necessarily those of the organisations that participants represent, nor of Friends of Europe, its Board of Trustees, members or partners. Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted, provided that full credit is given to Friends of Europe and that any such reproduction, whether in whole or in part, is not sold unless incorporated in other works. Rapporteurs: Paul Ames and Sebastian Moffett Publisher: Geert Cami Director: Nathalie Furrer Events Manager: Laetitia Garcia Moreno Programme Managers: Jean-Yves Stenuick and Clotilde Sipp Project Assistant: Nina Hasratyan Photographers: Philippe Molitor and François de Ribaucourt Design: Ilaria Dozio and Elza Lőw © Friends of Europe - December 2016 This report is printed on responsibly produced paper TABLE OF CONTENTS About Friends of Europe 7 Executive summary 10 Annual roundtable seeks way ahead for Europe in crisis 10 Disruption, disorder and division: Crunch time for Europe 14 Time to get tough on populism 15 A communications fightback 21 Tough on the causes of populism: Inspiring hope in the economy 25 Bridging societal gaps 31 Within communities: a question of trust 35 Reaching out to build a better EU 41 Generation Brexit 47 Optimism from the outside 54 Recommendations for a rethink 59 The President’s Gala Dinner 64 Revitalising growth in Europe 65 ANNEX I – Programme 70 ANNEX II – List of participants and observers 76 List of participants 77 List of observers 86 The State of Europe 2016 | Winter 2016 7 ABOUT FRIENDS OF EUROPE www.friendsofeurope.org /friendsofeurope.foe @friendsofeurope Friends of Europe is a leading think tank that connects people, stimulates debate and triggers change to create a more inclusive, sustainable and forward-looking Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Hate Speech Ignited Understanding Hate Speech in Myanmar
    Hate Speech Ignited Understanding Hate Speech in Myanmar Hate Speech Ignited Understanding Hate Speech in Myanmar October 2020 About Us This report was written based on the information and data collection, monitoring, analytical insights and experiences with hate speech by civil society organizations working to reduce and/or directly af- fected by hate speech. The research for the report was coordinated by Burma Monitor (Research and Monitoring) and Progressive Voice and written with the assistance of the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School while it is co-authored by a total 19 organizations. Jointly published by: 1. Action Committee for Democracy Development 2. Athan (Freedom of Expression Activist Organization) 3. Burma Monitor (Research and Monitoring) 4. Generation Wave 5. International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School 6. Kachin Women’s Association Thailand 7. Karen Human Rights Group 8. Mandalay Community Center 9. Myanmar Cultural Research Society 10. Myanmar People Alliance (Shan State) 11. Nyan Lynn Thit Analytica 12. Olive Organization 13. Pace on Peaceful Pluralism 14. Pon Yate 15. Progressive Voice 16. Reliable Organization 17. Synergy - Social Harmony Organization 18. Ta’ang Women’s Organization 19. Thint Myat Lo Thu Myar (Peace Seekers and Multiculturalist Movement) Contact Information Progressive Voice [email protected] www.progressivevoicemyanmar.org Burma Monitor [email protected] International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School [email protected] https://hrp.law.harvard.edu Acknowledgments Firstly and most importantly, we would like to express our deepest appreciation to the activists, human rights defenders, civil society organizations, and commu- nity-based organizations that provided their valuable time, information, data, in- sights, and analysis for this report.
    [Show full text]