Search results
Jul 15, 2023 · Isaac Chotiner interviews Genevieve Lakier about a free-speech-related court ruling restricting federal officials’ communications with social-media companies.
- Isaac Chotiner
Should the scope of protections be broader and allow more free speech online, or instead recalibrate to address increases in hateful, violent and discriminatory content? More generally, how can human rights law be asserted and enforced in an online environment where corporations like facebook and twitter seem to hold all the cards?
Oct 19, 2022 · Expression and exchanges of views increasingly take place online, including through social media platforms, websites and search engines. The right to freedom of expression is balanced by the responsibilities held by government, media and technology, and citizens.
In the midst of the current technological revolution, free speech is both facing and posing new challenges. Today, stories about social media giants wielding their algorithms for and against the spread of disinformation flood the news. In light of this ongoing debate, freedom of speech has become a central topic when it comes to
Nov 9, 2022 · Barroso defined inauthentic behavior as the use of bots, fake profiles, or hired provocateurs to amplify misinformation, disinformation, lies, hate speech, or conspiracy theories. Within the realm of content regulation, platform liability is another major point of discussion, Barroso said.
Oct 7, 2021 · Free Speech On Social Media: Filtering Methods, Rights, Future Prospects. Yes, our right to free speech absolutely exists online. But there is serious debate about how to regulate our freedom of speech in the online sphere, particularly on social media. by LibertiesEU.
People also ask
Does free speech exist on social media?
Does our right to free speech exist online?
How does social media affect our freedom of speech?
Is online speech protected speech?
How do social media companies limit free speech?
Does social media polarization cause partisanship?
Mar 29, 2021 · The main issue was whether these statements were protected by free speech. The court had to decide where to draw the line between constitutionally protected free speech and ‘non tolerable’, meaning legally sanctionable, hate speech.
