Privacy Law Commons^™

Learning From Mistakes: A Guide To Expanding The Oversight Board, Kevin Frazier

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

More than 4.4 billion people use social media. A few platforms attract a significant number of those users—for example, 2.9 billion people use Facebook, 2.3 billion use YouTube, and 1.2 billion use WeChat. How these major platforms govern themselves with respect to content moderation has an impact on billions of users and may lead to policy changes across other platforms that affect billions more. That is why it is so important to analyze Meta’s Oversight Board—an independent body created for the purpose of “promot[ing] free expression by making principled, independent decisions regarding content on Facebook and Instagram by issuing recommendations …

Sharenting And The (Potential) Right To Be Forgotten, Keltie Haley

Indiana Law Journal

Part I of this Note serves as an evaluation of parental use of social media and

further seeks to draw attention to the social and developmental impact parental

oversharing can have on children. Part II examines the tension between parents’

constitutional rights to direct the upbringing of their children, as well as their First

Amendment interest in online expression, and their children’s interest in personal

data security and privacy. Part III provides an overview of the European Union’s

right to be forgotten framework in the sharenting context and considers the

plausibility of implementing such a framework in the United States. …

Bad Actors: Authenticity, Inauthenticity, Speech, And Capitalism, Sarah C. Haan

Scholarly Articles

“Authenticity” has evolved into an important value that guides social media companies’ regulation of online speech. It is enforced through rules and practices that include real-name policies, Terms of Service requiring users to present only accurate information about themselves, community guidelines that prohibit “coordinated inauthentic behavior,” verification practices, product features, and more.

This Article critically examines authenticity regulation by the social media industry, including companies’ claims that authenticity is a moral virtue, an expressive value, and a pragmatic necessity for online communication. It explains how authenticity regulation provides economic value to companies engaged in “information capitalism,” “data capitalism,” and “surveillance …

Symposium: The California Consumer Privacy Act, Margot Kaminski, Jacob Snow, Felix Wu, Justin Hughes

Publications

This symposium discussion of the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review focuses on the newly enacted California Consumer Privacy Act (CPPA), a statute signed into state law by then-Governor Jerry Brown on June 28, 2018 and effective as of January 1, 2020. The panel was held on February 20, 2020.

The panelists discuss how businesses are responding to the new law and obstacles for consumers to make effective use of the law’s protections and rights. Most importantly, the panelists grapple with questions courts are likely to have to address, including the definition of personal information under the CCPA, the application …

Censorship, Free Speech & Facebook: Applying The First Amendment To Social Media Platforms Via The Public Function Exception, Matthew P. Hooker

Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts

Society has a love-hate relationship with social media. Thanks to social media platforms, the world is more connected than ever before. But with the ever-growing dominance of social media there have come a mass of challenges. What is okay to post? What isn't? And who or what should be regulating those standards? Platforms are now constantly criticized for their content regulation policies, sometimes because they are viewed as too harsh and other times because they are characterized as too lax. And naturally, the First Amendment quickly enters the conversation. Should social media platforms be subject to the First Amendment? Can—or …

Commercial Clicks: Advertising Algorithms As Commercial Speech, Kerri A. Thompson

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

Congressional hearings have finally called for the "right regulation" of social media platforms. The First Amendment, however, has shielded internet companies from regulation since the birth of social media. Even if Congress enacts legislation now, internet companies will be able to defend against the "wrong regulation" by claiming the regulation unconstitutionally limits their freedom of speech. This Article uses Facebook's advertising algorithms as a case study of how Congress can properly regulate Facebook by analyzing the advertising algorithms as commercial speech, which receives less protection under First Amendment jurisprudence. In doing so, Congress can protect the strong public interest in …

Facebook V. Sullivan: Public Figures And Newsworthiness In Online Speech, Thomas E. Kadri, Kate Klonick

Faculty Publications

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 …

The First Amendment In The Second Gilded Age, Jack M. Balkin

Buffalo Law Review

How do we pay for the digital public sphere? In the Second Gilded Age, the answer is primarily through digital surveillance and through finding ever new ways to make money out of personal data. Digital capitalism in the Second Gilded Age features an implicit bargain: a seemingly unlimited freedom to speak in exchange for the right to surveil and manipulate end users.To protect freedom of speech in the Second Gilded Age we must distinguish the values of free speech from the judicially created doctrines of the First Amendment. That is because the practical freedom to speak online depends on a …

Here We Are Now, Entertain Us: Defining The Line Between Personal And Professional Context On Social Media, Raizel Liebler, Keidra Chaney

Pace Law Review

Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram allow individuals and companies to connect directly and regularly with an audience of peers or with the public at large. These websites combine the audience-building platforms of mass media with the personal data and relationships of in-person social networks. Due to a combination of evolving user activity and frequent updates to functionality and user features, social media tools blur the line of whether a speaker is perceived as speaking to a specific and presumed private audience, a public expression of one’s own personal views, or a representative viewpoint of an entire …