Read on Twitter
There are many excellent threads debating the action social media companies have taken against Trump. This #bizhumanrights thread is intended to ask, “what would the UNGPs imply”? 1/12
Principle 16, Policy, suggests that the content standards deployed by social media cos should be grounded in international human rights law. @davidkaye and others have written extensively on this. 2/12
Principle 17, Due Diligence, suggests that social media cos should be make rapid content decisions within the context of ongoing due diligence—that decisions are not “made on the go” but benefit from an overall due diligence infrastructure. HRIAs form one part of this 3/12
Principle 18, Assess Impacts, suggests social media cos should engage extensively with affected stakeholders; for example, this will help assess the link between online content & offline harm. Facebook sets out its stakeholder engagement approach here http://bit.ly/35qx7Wi 4/12
Principle 19, Appropriate Action, suggests social media cos should consider the responsibility & leverage they have in broader system. Social media cos won’t solve white supremacy alone; what is their role in relation to others; how will this differ across internet stack? 5/12
Principle 20, Tracking, suggests social media cos should review the effectiveness of their approach. The benefit of hindsight is all to easy in social media, but what can be learned from recent events? What might be done differently in future cases to avoid or prevent harm? 6/12
Principle 21, Comms, suggests social media cos should communicate publicly. Twitter’s explanation for banning Trump is good example, but what should standard practice be, how should human rights be referenced? Comms from FB Oversight Board cases will be interesting to watch 7/12
Principle 22, Remedy, suggests users (even Trump?) should be able to appeal a decision. Will be fascinating to see if the FB Oversight Board takes on the question of whether and when the speech of elected officials should be restricted 8/12
Principle 23, Context, suggests considering local context when making decisions is essential. Social media companies are faced with the enormous challenge of considering speech not just in the US but in 190+ other countries too—each with the own local dynamics 9/12
Principle 24, Prioritization, is especially important in the content moderation field given the sheer volume of content. The implication is to prioritize based on the severity of the impact, and this will mostly not be in the company US backyard 10/12
Reading the UNGPs it is clear human rights-based approaches to content governance are not just about the content decision itself and a set of standards, but how that decision is made, how it is reviewed, and how it can be appealed @barrie_sander 11/12
It is also about considering how to counterbalance rights that come into conflict with one another for legitimate reasons, such as expression, safety, and democracy, and how to pursue the fullest expression of each, and how to explain that judgment 12/12
For more on this, follow the excellent work of @rankingrights @ElCalavero @davidkaye @thegni @bsrnews @ellanso @evelyndouk @Barrie_Sander @oversightboard @globalpartnersd @rich_wing @rmack @isedua and many others.
