Read on Twitter
Protecting the #OpenInternet is a key objective for Twitter – it’s why we exist. There are two key areas to consider:
1. Avoid entrenching the dominance of the biggest players by protecting competition
2. Focus on how content is discovered + amplified, less on removal alone
1. Avoid entrenching the dominance of the biggest players by protecting competition
2. Focus on how content is discovered + amplified, less on removal alone
By delivering unprecedented economic and technological progress, the Open Internet has led to wider access to information and opportunities to speak that are core to participatory, democratic societies.
As the EU develops a number of critical proposals, including the #DigitalServicesAct and the #DemocracyActionPlan, it's time to establish principles of what constitutes a values-driven Open Internet and place them at the heart of the online century. https://twitter.com/DisinfoEU/status/1286248282503688193?s=20
With repressive regimes around the world using shutdowns, throttling, and draconian legal frameworks to stifle online freedoms, the norms that inform new legislation have never been more important. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/keep-it-on-making-your-voice-heard-to-end-internet-shutdowns.html
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/keep-it-on-making-your-voice-heard-to-end-internet-shutdowns.html
1. If legislation serves to cement the position of larger companies, it will harm the Open Internet, innovation, and consumer choice irreparably. In sum, robust competition and guaranteeing a fair playing field are essential.
This should be of deep concern to regulators and civil society alike. Why?
The largest technology companies favour an outcome that protects their commercial position.
The largest technology companies favour an outcome that protects their commercial position.
Legislative frameworks should consider impacts to competition and innovation.
E.g. GDPR has had positive effects on consumer privacy but a @TilburgU study found it had adverse effects on competition by strengthening large companies. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3598130
E.g. GDPR has had positive effects on consumer privacy but a @TilburgU study found it had adverse effects on competition by strengthening large companies. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3598130
If regulation unconsciously creates a framework where big companies continue to consolidate and expand market power, there’s risk of undermining the foundational principles of the open, participatory, and democratic Internet – not to mention the fundamental values of the EU.
2. The debate is too often framed through the prism of content removal alone. Without question, some content – including terrorist content and child sexual abuse material – must be removed expeditiously. But removing content alone cannot be the sole paradigm of Internet policy
Creative initiatives from the @EU_Commission have shown the effectiveness and tremendous potential of an EU-wide approach. However, framing the conversation as always a judgement call between 'leaving it up' or 'taking it down' is too reductive.
Government, industry, and NGOs must consider our shared responsibility in offering the public more context, de-amplifying certain types of content, and ensuring the reach of political speech is earned and not bought or manipulated.
In order to protect open, civic-minded societies, we need a dynamic, sophisticated and nuanced approach to content moderation.
This nuanced approach guides our work on a number of issues and practices.
This nuanced approach guides our work on a number of issues and practices.
We regularly disclose all state-linked information operations that we remove from our service, and work across the industry to fight this malicious behavior. https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1271186243032932354
We partner with international organisations to advance media literacy and share meaningful public data to empower third-party research. https://twitter.com/Nonprofits/status/1248579898987483139
We increasingly build our policies in public and get feedback from the people we serve so Twitter is as responsive as possible to their needs. https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1267986503721988096
We have stopped all political ads globally and have banned state-backed media from advertising on our service. https://twitter.com/jack/status/1189634360472829952
We’re focused on labeling misleading content regarding voting and COVID-19, and offering context to manipulated media designed to cause harm. https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1267986504523153408
It’s why we use labels on Tweets by public figures when they violate our rules; as we believe removing the content distorts the historical record and dilutes the public's right to express dissent or engage debate in response. https://twitter.com/Policy/status/949399580721983490?s=20
There is exciting terrain to explore in alternative regulatory paths that promote an informed, advanced online public, and which recognise the potential that a uniquely open service like Twitter can have in facilitating that process.
We believe regulation can be rights-based. And we believe it should hold corporate power to account, while rebuking authoritarian models of Internet governance, and declaring to the world that fundamental online freedoms and competition will be protected.
Protecting and promoting the #OpenInternet is a principal focus for our company, but we can't do it alone. We’re seeking allies and we welcome collaboration. We want to listen and learn.
