Facebook Says It Inadvertently Restricted A Hashtag. Now It Needs To Tell Us Exactly How And Why

This article originally appeared on Medianama. An excerpt is reproduced here:

An explanation

The presence of a political context surrounding these cases also raises the question of how Facebook is responding to the possible weaponisation of its community reporting. We know from Facebook’s August 2020 CIB report that it took against a network engaged in mass reporting. What principles does it use to define thresholds for action? How is such coordinated activity that falls below its self-defined threshold of Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour handled? Knowledge about the specifics of thresholds become essential when they make the difference between publicly disclosed and internal actions, as the Sophie Zhang – Guardian series demonstrated in the Indian context.Facebook — this applies to other networks too, but Facebook is by far the largest in India — needs to put forward more meaningful explanations in such cases. Ones that amount to more than ‘Oops!’ or ‘Look! We fixed it!’. There are, after all, no secret blocking rules stopping it from explaining its own mistakes. These explanations don’t have to be immediate. Issues can be complex, requiring detailed analysis. Set a definite timeline, and deliver. No doubt, this already happens for internal purposes. And then, actually show progress. Reduce the trust deficit, don’t feed it.This does raise concerns of being drawn into distracted by narrow content-specific conversations or being distracted by ‘transparency theater’, thereby missing the forest for the trees. These are legitimate risks and need to be navigated carefully. The micro-level focus can be about specific types of content or actions on a particular platform. At the macro-level, it is about impact on public discourse and society. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive and what we learn from one level should inform the others, in pursuit of greater accountability. To read more visit: Facebook says it inadvertently restricted a hashtag. Now it needs to tell us exactly how and why | MediaNama

Will India experience the fallout of Trump vs Twitter?

This is an extract from the full article which appeared in Deccan Herald.....But before resorting to isomorphic mimicry, it is important to understand what the executive order proposes. The reading suggests that it seeks to narrow the definition of 'good faith' under which a platform can carry out 'Good Samaritan' blocking. Kate Klonick was quoted in Recode as saying that the order was not enforceable and even referred to it is as 'political theatre'. And Daphne Keller published an annotated version of the order in which she classified various sections as 'atmospherics', 'legally dubious', and points on which 'reasonable minds can differ.The current trajectory in India appears to be headed in the opposite direction. A recent PIL in the Supreme Court, filed by a BJP member sought to make it mandatory to link social media accounts with identification. While the petition itself was disposed of, the petitioner was directed to be impleaded in the ongoing Whatsapp Traceability case. The draft Personal Data Protections proposes 'voluntary' verification for social media intermediaries.

Why India needs to be the centre for content moderation reform

You could put a price tag on what it costs to keep platforms clean of harmful content. $52 million is a good starting point (and an underestimation). But the learnings that come out of this experience have the potential to be priceless. Not just in terms of how much money they can potentially save in counselling costs, but in terms of preventing the mental harm that content moderation causes people who undertake it.The article was first published in Deccan Chronicle. Read more.