The @nytimes editorial board has called for social media platforms to come together with clear standards to address election disinformation. Good for them! nytimes.com/2020/09/27/opi…
This shouldn’t be hard. @alexstamos@2020Partnership have shown that platforms have been building their policies/practices, but they're hard to identify & so much remains opaque and subject to political pressure.
A joint platform commitment could have practical and signaling value. Practically, a statement of shared rules – even if, as applied, address the particularities of each platform – could make it easier for the platforms to act.
Transparent action could give the public a basis for understanding what’s normally opaque platform decisionmaking.
Such an approach should also be taken up by trad'l media outlets, which will be under competitive pressure on 11/3. Check out the comprehensive recommendations here, in this must-read report led by @rickhasenlaw.uci.edu/faculty/full-t… especially this
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Twitter has had a good run. Lots of people around the world have enjoyed the ability to call out corruption & abuse while tagging the abusers; previously unheard voices developed huge followings (for better or worse).
But the new owner's lack of seriousness & forethought, and an almost exclusive focus on the US context, makes me doubt that it will survive to do all that, at least globally. It may not die, but ppl will find others ways to engage.
i would be especially concerned if i were a user in a repressive environment. musk has done nothing to encourage people to believe they remain safe & that twitter will have their backs. worst, though, is that he hasn't seemed to consider the risks users face.
strong words from @POTUS at #UNGA today on human rights. much to admire, & yet...how much does the United States really use the Universal Declaration on Human Rights to "measure ourselves"? whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…
this is as much about us as it is about the rest of the world & I'm glad @POTUS concluded the way he did
and to its credit, the United States actively participates in the [very few] treaty bodies to which it is a party, rejoined the @UN_HRC, leads on some key issues.
this UK ruling, enabling a #Pegasus case to move forward against #SaudiArabia, is a *very big deal* as a matter of law, a blow against states seeking judicial protection against victims of their transnational repression. a preliminary-thoughts 🧵 theguardian.com/world/2022/aug…
the legal question was, in part, whether the UK courts should follow U.S. court holdings that, for an exception to sovereign immunity to be applicable (i.e., to allow a suit against a state), the 'whole tort' had to take place in the UK.
the 'whole tort' principle, in an age of transnational digital repression, makes little sense and effectively denies victims of surveillance a remedy when the perp is a state, as here (#SaudiArabia using #Pegasus against a human rights defender).
for a longer study of the industry and tools to address it, see my report to the UN in 2019, dealing with export reg, legal change, the vulnerabilities market, more. undocs.org/A/HRC/41/35