Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
The Legal Implications Of Synthetic And Manipulated Media, Thomas E. Kadri
The Legal Implications Of Synthetic And Manipulated Media, Thomas E. Kadri
Popular Media
Ahead of the U.S. 2020 presidential election, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace convened more than 100 experts from three dozen organizations inside and outside Silicon Valley in private meetings to help address the challenges that synthetic and manipulated media pose for industry, government, and society more broadly. Among other things, the meetings developed a common understanding of the potential for synthetic and manipulated media circulated on technology platforms to disrupt the upcoming presidential election, generated definitions of “inappropriate” election-related synthetic and manipulated media that have informed platform content moderation policies, and equipped platforms with playbooks of effective and ethical …
A Skeptical View Of Information Fiduciaries, Lina M. Khan, David E. Pozen
A Skeptical View Of Information Fiduciaries, Lina M. Khan, David E. Pozen
Faculty Scholarship
The concept of “information fiduciaries” has surged to the forefront of debates on online-platform regulation. Developed by Professor Jack Balkin, the concept is meant to rebalance the relationship between ordinary individuals and the digital companies that accumulate, analyze, and sell their personal data for profit. Just as the law imposes special duties of care, confidentiality, and loyalty on doctors, lawyers, and accountants vis-à-vis their patients and clients, Balkin argues, so too should it impose special duties on corporations such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter vis-à-vis their end users. Over the past several years, this argument has garnered remarkably broad support …
Facebook V. Sullivan: Public Figures And Newsworthiness In Online Speech, Thomas E. Kadri, Kate Klonick
Facebook V. Sullivan: Public Figures And Newsworthiness In Online Speech, Thomas E. Kadri, Kate Klonick
Scholarly Works
In the United States, there are now two systems to adjudicate disputes about harmful speech. The first is older and more established: the legal system in which judges apply constitutional law to limit tort claims alleging injuries caused by speech. The second is newer and less familiar: the content-moderation system in which platforms like Facebook implement the rules that govern online speech. These platforms are not bound by the First Amendment. But, as it turns out, they rely on many of the tools used by courts to resolve tensions between regulating harmful speech and preserving free expression—particularly the entangled concepts …