I am *really* excited about the Brazilian Supreme Court's Right to Be Forgotten case. I can't wait for Brazilian experts to weigh in and tell us more about the details, but the bottom line is that it's a constitutional rights-based rejection of RTBF claims. 1/
Brazil, like most countries, has cases where a personal privacy claim overrides the speaker's expression rights (or listeners' rights to access information). So I don't think the point is to say that can't happen. 2/
Rather, it's that the *process* for weighing privacy and expression rights matters. The Inter American Human Rights framework is particularly strong on this, and on expression rights generally. 3/
Article 13.3 of the Inter American Convention in particular makes it very clear how regulation of intermediaries becomes regulation of speakers. 4/
At Stanford, @lfmoncau and I worked on the issue of Right to Be Forgotten under Latin American human rights precedent for years. Luiz's work was cited in the court ruling. (Hopefully he can provide a link to it.) 5/
I wrote about this in English: cyberlaw.stanford.edu/files/publicat…
And Spanish (actually @CELEUP translated it): cyberlaw.stanford.edu/files/publicat…
Luiz and I led a student policy lab that produced a report for the OAS Free Expression rapporteur on the subject.
@cboteromarino organized an amazing event in Bogotá, where I learned a ton.
This has been a long, thoughtful discussion in Latin America. 7/
Canada is not a signatory to the Inter American Convention, so isn't bound by its rules. But I hope it will nonetheless consider Latin American developments, including Brazil's new ruling, in assessing its own RTBF proposals. I wrote about that here: cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2018/05/r… 8/
Also... I'm not going to name the EU RTBF expert who criticized a RightsCon panel on RTBF in LatAm for not including a European speaker. But. How about more LatAm experts on EU law panels? Or even just the ones about EU laws that will affect Latin Americans? 9/
Just a thought. 10/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Daphne Keller

Daphne Keller Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @daphnehk

12 Feb
I respect the Facebook Oversight Board and wish them the best. but “sucked into the private power vortex” is a good description of what’s going on. Do we want to support and reinforce pseudo-governance with pseudo-rights protections designed by Facebook?
I wrote about the problems with constructing private powers that superficially resemble constitutional and accountable governments here:

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
US lawmakers may be stuck accepting this kind of private governance (to go with our private prisons and private military contractors etc.) bc the 1st Am prevents Congress from setting the rules Internet users mostly want. Lawmakers’ hands are tied on this side of the Atlantic.
Read 4 tweets
12 Feb
I wonder what percent of the people who basically support the Facebook Oversight Board would drop that support over a move like this?
Probably I’m in that camp. If a few years pass and they prove super legit and useful I’d be open to the conversation. Bringing it up now is... Gauche? Gross? Creepy? Forfeiting credibility and goodwill? Something along those lines.
It’s also hard not to read this as policy advocacy. So many governments are looking for dispute resolution models that are cheaper than courts but more legitimate than platforms. And look who’s offering their services.
Read 4 tweets
11 Feb
Thx for helping w my spam query. I'd love insights on a reframed version. I'm thinking about products that already use ranking (news feeds, search) and sometimes demote for *product* reasons.
@therealfitz @rahaeli @jonathanstray @laurenweinstein @natematias @grimmelm
An easier example is a Googlebomb. When pranksters used SEO tactics to make the White House homepage be the first result for searches on "miserable failure" for example. searchengineland.com/google-kills-b… 2/
The problem isn't that the white house page was bad content or needed to be removed/demoted based on Google's disapproval of its message. It was that it wasn't the most relevant result, so changing ranking to move it down improved product functionality or search quality. 3/
Read 6 tweets
11 Feb
OK I am noodling about spam and could use help from experienced people. @therealfitz @helloyouths @mattcutts @adelin
I think of spam as different from illegal or TOS-prohibited content, because the problem is not necessarily that spam is bad content per se. It’s that spam is in the wrong place – showing up in the inbox, news feed, or search results of someone who’s not interested. 2/
Thus demotion -- rather than removal – might be the right platform response. Demotion fixes the problem by putting content back in the ranking position that best correlates to the likelihood that a user actually wants to see it. 3/
Read 7 tweets
15 Dec 20
Assorted observations on the #DSA. These track my own interests, so if you want an overview, look elsewhere. (If I see one, I’ll add it to the thread though.) 1/
I’d like to see a chart showing which obligations apply to which platforms, particularly at the smaller end of the range. It looks to me like some very burdensome obligations are going to fall on some very small entities. 2/
I know there are some Commission slides showing the obligations at the giant (VLOP!) end of the range. But that small end needs some serious attention IMO. 3/
Read 30 tweets
14 Dec 20
I am resisting the urge to tweet a bunch about the leaked DSA draft, just in case something changes by tomorrow.
But let me just say there are no real surprises.
I'm seeing a lot of discussion of the rules for "very large" platforms. But if I'm understanding right, a lot of the DSA's major new process rules apply to any platform with more than 50 employees. That ought to entrench incumbents quite nicely.
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!