WEBVTT
00:00:00.440 --> 00:00:09.460
prerol music
00:00:09.460 --> 00:00:13.849
Herald: Our next Talk will be tackling how
social media companies are creating a
00:00:13.849 --> 00:00:20.480
global morality standard through content
regulations. This would be presented by
00:00:20.480 --> 00:00:25.470
two persons standing here the digital
rights advocate Matthew Stender and the
00:00:25.470 --> 00:00:31.220
writer and activist Jillian C. York. Please
give them a warm applause.
00:00:31.220 --> 00:00:38.090
applause
00:00:38.090 --> 00:00:41.480
Matthew: Hello everybody. I hope you all
had a great Congress. Thank you for being
00:00:41.480 --> 00:00:46.949
here today. You know we're almost wrapped
up with the Congress but yeah we
00:00:46.949 --> 00:00:51.929
appreciate you being here. My name is
Matthew Stender. I am a communications
00:00:51.929 --> 00:00:57.419
strategist's creative director and digital
rights advocate focusing on privacy.
00:00:57.419 --> 00:01:02.000
Social media censorship and Freedom of
Press and expression.
00:01:02.000 --> 00:01:06.550
Jillian: And I am Jillian York and I work
at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I
00:01:06.550 --> 00:01:10.581
work on privacy and free expression issues
as well as a few other things and I'm
00:01:10.581 --> 00:01:18.480
based in Berlin. Thank you. For Berlin?
Awesome. Cool. Hope to see some of you
00:01:18.480 --> 00:01:22.410
there. Great. So today we're gonna be
talking about sin in the time of
00:01:22.410 --> 00:01:27.140
technology and what we mean by that is the
way in which corporations particularly
00:01:27.140 --> 00:01:31.320
content platforms and social media
platforms are driving morality and our
00:01:31.320 --> 00:01:36.630
perception of it. We've got three key
takeaways to start off with. The first is
00:01:36.630 --> 00:01:40.430
that social media companies have an
unparalleled amount of influence over our
00:01:40.430 --> 00:01:43.980
modern communications. This we know I
think this is probably something everyone
00:01:43.980 --> 00:01:48.130
in this room can agree on. These companies
also play a huge role in shaping our
00:01:48.130 --> 00:01:52.580
global outlook on morality and what
constitutes it. So the ways in which we
00:01:52.580 --> 00:01:57.280
perceive different imagery different
speech is being increasingly defined by
00:01:57.280 --> 00:02:02.100
the regulations that these platforms put
upon us on our daily activities on them.
00:02:02.100 --> 00:02:05.780
And third they are entirely undemocratic.
They're beholden to shareholders and
00:02:05.780 --> 00:02:10.170
governments but not at all to the public.
Not to me, not to you. Rarely do they
00:02:10.170 --> 00:02:14.120
listen to us and when they do there has to
be a fairly exceptional mount of public
00:02:14.120 --> 00:02:18.340
pressure on them. And so that's, that's
our starting point that's what we wanna
00:02:18.340 --> 00:02:22.769
kick off with and I'll pass the mike to
Matthew.
00:02:22.769 --> 00:02:28.170
M: So thinking about these three takeaways
I'm going to bring it to kind of top level
00:02:28.170 --> 00:02:38.209
for a moment. To introduce an idea today
which some people have talked about but
00:02:38.209 --> 00:02:44.400
the idea of the rise of the techno class.
So probably a lot of people in this room
00:02:44.400 --> 00:02:50.990
have followed the negotiations, leaks in
part and then in full by WikiLeaks about
00:02:50.990 --> 00:02:58.050
the Trans-Pacific Partnership the TPP what
some people have mentioned in this debate
00:02:58.050 --> 00:03:03.360
is the idea of a corporate capture in a
world now in which that corporations are
00:03:03.360 --> 00:03:09.220
becoming are maturing to this to the
extent in which they can now sue
00:03:09.220 --> 00:03:15.270
governments that the multinational reach
of many corporations are larger than that.
00:03:15.270 --> 00:03:21.620
The diplomatic reach of countries. And
with this social media platforms being
00:03:21.620 --> 00:03:26.250
part of this that they, that these social
media companies now are going to have the
00:03:26.250 --> 00:03:30.180
capacity to influence not only cultures
but people within cultures and how they
00:03:30.180 --> 00:03:36.239
communicate with people inside their
culture and communicate globally. So as
00:03:36.239 --> 00:03:40.989
activists and technologists I would like
to propose at least that we start thinking
00:03:40.989 --> 00:03:45.099
about and beyond the product and service
offerings of today's social media
00:03:45.099 --> 00:03:50.660
companies and start looking ahead to two -
five - ten years down the road in which
00:03:50.660 --> 00:03:56.559
these companies may have social media
services and serve as media social media
00:03:56.559 --> 00:04:00.709
service offerings which are
indistinguishable from today's ISPs and
00:04:00.709 --> 00:04:05.910
telcos and other things. And this is
really to say that social media is moving
00:04:05.910 --> 00:04:15.400
past the era of the walled garden into neo
empires. So one of the things that is on
00:04:15.400 --> 00:04:20.298
the slide are some headlines about
different delivery mechanisms in which
00:04:20.298 --> 00:04:24.980
that social media companies and also
people like Elon Musk are looking to roll
00:04:24.980 --> 00:04:30.050
out an almost leapfrog if not completely
leapfrog the existing technologies of
00:04:30.050 --> 00:04:36.530
Russia broadcasting fiberoptics these sort
of things. So we now are looking at a
00:04:36.530 --> 00:04:41.240
world in which that Facebook is now gonna
have drones. Google is looking into
00:04:41.240 --> 00:04:46.590
balloons and other people looking into low
earth orbit satellites to be able to
00:04:46.590 --> 00:04:52.220
provide directly to the end consumer, to
the user, to the handset the content which
00:04:52.220 --> 00:04:58.199
flows through these networks. So one of
the first things I believe we're gonna see
00:04:58.199 --> 00:05:05.600
in this field is free basics. Facebook has
a service it was launched as Internet.org
00:05:05.600 --> 00:05:12.021
and now it's been rebranded free basics
and why this is interesting is that while
00:05:12.021 --> 00:05:17.060
in one hand free basis is a free service
that it's trying to get the people that
00:05:17.060 --> 00:05:21.590
are not on the Internet now to use a
Facebook's window Facebook's window to the
00:05:21.590 --> 00:05:28.030
world. It has maybe a couple dozen sites
that are accessible it runs over the data
00:05:28.030 --> 00:05:35.180
networks for countries reliance the
telecommunications company in India is one
00:05:35.180 --> 00:05:41.550
of the larger telcos but not the largest.
There's a lot of pressure that Facebook is
00:05:41.550 --> 00:05:48.320
putting on the government of India right
now to be able to have the service offered
00:05:48.320 --> 00:05:54.960
across the country. One of the ways that
this is problematic is because a limited
00:05:54.960 --> 00:05:59.300
number of Web sites flow through this that
people that get exposed to free basic.
00:05:59.300 --> 00:06:05.180
This might be their first time seeing the
Internet in some cases because an example
00:06:05.180 --> 00:06:10.350
is interesting to think about is a lion
born into a zoo. Perhaps evolution and
00:06:10.350 --> 00:06:16.889
other things may have this line dream
perhaps of running wild on the plains of
00:06:16.889 --> 00:06:25.080
Africa but at the same time it will never
know that world Facebook free basic users
00:06:25.080 --> 00:06:32.199
knowing Facebook's view to the window of
the Internet may not all jump over to a
00:06:32.199 --> 00:06:37.380
full data package on their ISP. And many
people may be stuck in Facebook's window
00:06:37.380 --> 00:06:41.190
to the world.
00:06:41.190 --> 00:06:44.740
J: In other words we've reached an era
where these companies have as I've said
00:06:44.740 --> 00:06:48.530
unprecedented control over our daily
communications both the information that
00:06:48.530 --> 00:06:52.460
we can access and the speech and imagery
that we can express to the world and to
00:06:52.460 --> 00:06:55.880
each other. So the postings and pages and
friend requests, the millions of
00:06:55.880 --> 00:06:59.620
politically active users as well, have
helped to make Mark Zuckerberg and his
00:06:59.620 --> 00:07:02.770
colleagues as well as the people at
Google, Twitter and all these other fine
00:07:02.770 --> 00:07:07.850
companies extremely rich and yet we're
pushing back in this case. I've got a
00:07:07.850 --> 00:07:11.400
great quote from Rebecca MacKinnon where
she refers to Facebook as Facebookistan
00:07:11.400 --> 00:07:14.610
and I think that that is an apt example of
what we're looking at. These are
00:07:14.610 --> 00:07:19.280
corporations but they're not beholden at
all to the public as we know. And instead
00:07:19.280 --> 00:07:23.190
they've kind of turned into these quasi
dictatorships that dictate precisely how
00:07:23.190 --> 00:07:29.400
we behave on them. I also wanted to throw
this one up to talk a little bit about the
00:07:29.400 --> 00:07:34.030
global speech norm. This is from Ben
Wagner who's written a number of pieces on
00:07:34.030 --> 00:07:38.370
this but who kind of coined the concept of
a global speech standard which is what
00:07:38.370 --> 00:07:42.930
these companies have begun and are
increasingly imposing upon us. This global
00:07:42.930 --> 00:07:47.800
speech standard is essentially catering to
everyone in the world trying to make every
00:07:47.800 --> 00:07:51.800
user in every country and every government
happy. But as a result have kind of tamper
00:07:51.800 --> 00:07:57.360
down free speech to this very basic level
that makes both the governments of let's
00:07:57.360 --> 00:08:00.930
say the United States and Germany happy as
well as the governments of countries like
00:08:00.930 --> 00:08:05.270
Saudi Arabia. Therefore we're looking at
really kind of the lowest common
00:08:05.270 --> 00:08:09.870
denominator when it comes to sometimes
tone types of speech and this sort of flat
00:08:09.870 --> 00:08:14.810
gray standard when it comes to others.
00:08:14.810 --> 00:08:22.050
M: So Jillian just mentioned we have
countries in play. Facebook is another
00:08:22.050 --> 00:08:26.080
organizations social media companies are
trying to pivot and play within an
00:08:26.080 --> 00:08:30.490
international field but let's just take it
up for a moment a look at the scale and
00:08:30.490 --> 00:08:35.799
scope and size of these social media
companies. So I just put some figures from
00:08:35.799 --> 00:08:42.750
the Internet and with some latest census
information we have China 1.37 billion
00:08:42.750 --> 00:08:48.020
people, India 1.25 billion people 2.2
billion individuals and practitioners of
00:08:48.020 --> 00:08:51.762
Islam and Christianity. But now we have
Facebook with according to their
00:08:51.762 --> 00:08:57.610
statistics 1.5 billion active monthly
users. Their statistics - I'm sure many
00:08:57.610 --> 00:09:01.520
people would like to dispute these numbers
- but the same time with these platforms
00:09:01.520 --> 00:09:08.640
are now large. I mean larger than - not
larger than some of religions - but
00:09:08.640 --> 00:09:15.040
Facebook has more monthly active users
than China or India have citizens. So
00:09:15.040 --> 00:09:19.061
we're not talking about - you know -
basement startups, we're now talking about
00:09:19.061 --> 00:09:26.940
companies with the size and scale to be
able to really be influential in a larger
00:09:26.940 --> 00:09:42.790
institutional way. So Magna Carta app the
U.S. Constitution the Declaration of Human
00:09:42.790 --> 00:09:49.130
Rights the tree of masters the Bible the
Quran. These are time tested at least
00:09:49.130 --> 00:09:55.310
longstanding principle documents. That's
how that place upon their constituents
00:09:55.310 --> 00:10:03.980
whether it be citizens or spiritual
adherents a certain code of conduct.
00:10:03.980 --> 00:10:08.510
Facebook, as Jillian mentioned, is
nondemocratic. Facebook's terms and
00:10:08.510 --> 00:10:12.990
standards were written by a small group of
individuals with a few compelling
00:10:12.990 --> 00:10:18.540
interests in mind. But we are now talking
about 1.5 billion people on a monthly
00:10:18.540 --> 00:10:27.240
basis that are subservient to a Terms of
Service in which they had no input on.
00:10:27.240 --> 00:10:32.470
Sort of pivot from there and bring it back
to spirituality why is this important.
00:10:32.470 --> 00:10:41.890
Well spiritual morality has always been a
place for - for religion. Religion has a
00:10:41.890 --> 00:10:49.760
monopoly on the soul. You could say, that
religion is a set of rules in which that
00:10:49.760 --> 00:10:55.860
if you obey you are able to not go to hell
or heaven after an afterlife reincarnated
00:10:55.860 --> 00:11:02.560
whatever the religious practice may be.
Civil morality is quite interesting in the
00:11:02.560 --> 00:11:07.610
sense that the sovereign state as a top
level institution has the ability to put
00:11:07.610 --> 00:11:13.460
into place a series of statutes and
regulations. The violation of which can
00:11:13.460 --> 00:11:18.570
send you to jail. Another interesting note
is that the state is also, also has a
00:11:18.570 --> 00:11:24.670
monopoly on the use of sanctioned
violence. Say that's the actors of
00:11:24.670 --> 00:11:28.080
official actors of the states are able to
do things in which that the citizens
00:11:28.080 --> 00:11:35.570
citizens of that state may not. And if we
take a look at this this concept of
00:11:35.570 --> 00:11:41.910
digital morality I spoke about earlier
with services like free basic introducing
00:11:41.910 --> 00:11:48.459
new individuals to the Internet well, by a
violation of the terms of service you can
00:11:48.459 --> 00:11:58.399
be excluded from these massive global
networks. And really they, Facebook is
00:11:58.399 --> 00:12:04.050
actually trying to create a if not a
monopoly a semi monopoly on global
00:12:04.050 --> 00:12:14.000
connectivity. in a lot of ways. So what
drives Facebook and this is a few things.
00:12:14.000 --> 00:12:20.870
One is a protection stick protectionistic
legal framework. Ok. The control of
00:12:20.870 --> 00:12:25.360
copyright violations is something that a
lot of platforms stomped out pretty early.
00:12:25.360 --> 00:12:29.899
They don't want to be sued by the IRA or
the MPAA. And so there was mechanisms in
00:12:29.899 --> 00:12:36.641
which copyright, copyrighted material was
able to be taken on the platform. They
00:12:36.641 --> 00:12:41.990
also or limit potential competition. And I
think this is quite interesting in the
00:12:41.990 --> 00:12:47.220
sense that they have shown this in two
ways. One: They've boughten they've
00:12:47.220 --> 00:12:52.140
purchased rival or potential competitors.
You see this with Instagram being bought
00:12:52.140 --> 00:12:57.870
by Facebook. But Facebook has also
demonstrated the ability or willingness to
00:12:57.870 --> 00:13:04.899
censor certain context, certain content.
tsu.co was a news social sites and
00:13:04.899 --> 00:13:10.279
mentions and links to this platform were
deleted or not allowed on Facebook. So
00:13:10.279 --> 00:13:16.480
even using Facebook as a platform to talk
about another platform was was not
00:13:16.480 --> 00:13:23.860
allowed. And then a third component is the
operation on the global scale. It's only
00:13:23.860 --> 00:13:29.440
the size of the company it's also about
the global reach. So if Facebook maintains
00:13:29.440 --> 00:13:33.320
offices around the world, as other social
media companies do, they engage in public
00:13:33.320 --> 00:13:41.720
diplomacy and they also offer aid in many
countries and many languages. So just to
00:13:41.720 --> 00:13:47.450
take it to to companies like Facebook for
a moment really an economics you have the
00:13:47.450 --> 00:13:53.490
traditional multinationals the 20th
century Coca Cola McDonald's. The end
00:13:53.490 --> 00:14:00.610
user. The end goal the goal for the end
user of these products was consumption.
00:14:00.610 --> 00:14:05.170
This is changing now. Facebook is looking
to capture more and more parts of the
00:14:05.170 --> 00:14:11.339
supply chain. And as a this may be as a
service provider as a content moderator
00:14:11.339 --> 00:14:21.070
and responsible for negotiating and
educating the content disputes. At the end
00:14:21.070 --> 00:14:27.510
of the day that users are really the
product. It's not for us Facebook users
00:14:27.510 --> 00:14:32.630
the platform it's really for advertisers.
We take a hierarchy of the platform where
00:14:32.630 --> 00:14:38.510
the corporation advertisers and then users
kind of at the fringes.
00:14:38.510 --> 00:14:41.899
J: So let's get into the nitty gritty a
little bit about what content moderation
00:14:41.899 --> 00:14:46.399
on these platforms actually looks like. So
I've put up two headlines from Adrian Chan
00:14:46.399 --> 00:14:50.149
a journalist who wrote these for Gawker
and wired respectively. They're both a
00:14:50.149 --> 00:14:54.910
couple of years old. But what he did was
he looked into he investigated who was
00:14:54.910 --> 00:14:58.899
moderating the content on these platforms
and what he found and accused these
00:14:58.899 --> 00:15:03.100
companies out of is outsourcing the
content moderation to low paid workers in
00:15:03.100 --> 00:15:06.779
developing countries. In this case he
found the first article I think Morocco
00:15:06.779 --> 00:15:09.970
was the country and I'm gonna show a slide
from that a bit of what those content
00:15:09.970 --> 00:15:14.050
moderators worked with. And the second
article talked a lot about the use of
00:15:14.050 --> 00:15:17.110
workers in the Philippines for this
purpose. We know that these workers are
00:15:17.110 --> 00:15:21.529
probably low paid. We know that they're
given very very minimal amount of a
00:15:21.529 --> 00:15:25.200
minimal timeframe to look at the content
that they're being presented. So here's
00:15:25.200 --> 00:15:31.199
how it basically works across platforms
with small differences. I post something
00:15:31.199 --> 00:15:34.580
and I'll show you some great examples of
things they posted later. I post something
00:15:34.580 --> 00:15:39.070
and if I post it to my friends only, my
friends can then report it to the company.
00:15:39.070 --> 00:15:43.430
If I post it publicly anybody who can see
it or who's a user of the product can
00:15:43.430 --> 00:15:47.800
report it to the company. Once a piece of
content is reported a content moderator
00:15:47.800 --> 00:15:51.420
then looks at it and within that very
small time frame we're talking half a
00:15:51.420 --> 00:15:56.160
second to two seconds probably based on
the investigative research that's been
00:15:56.160 --> 00:16:00.130
done by a number of people they have to
decide if this content fits the terms of
00:16:00.130 --> 00:16:03.990
service or not. Now most of these
companies have a legalistic terms of
00:16:03.990 --> 00:16:07.800
service as well as a set of community
guidelines or community standards which
00:16:07.800 --> 00:16:12.740
are clear to the user but they're still
often very vague. And so I wanna get into
00:16:12.740 --> 00:16:18.270
a couple of examples that show that. This
is just this slide is the one of the
00:16:18.270 --> 00:16:21.290
examples that I gave. You can't see it
very well, so I won't leave it up for too
00:16:21.290 --> 00:16:25.800
long. But that was what content moderators
at this outsource company oDesk were
00:16:25.800 --> 00:16:33.880
allegedly using to moderate content on
Facebook. This next photo contains nudity.
00:16:33.880 --> 00:16:40.740
So I think everyone probably knows who
this is and has seen this photo. Yes? No?
00:16:40.740 --> 00:16:46.389
OK. This is Kim Kardashian and this photo
allegedly broke the Internet. It was a
00:16:46.389 --> 00:16:50.779
photo taken for paper magazine. It was
posted widely on the web and it was seen
00:16:50.779 --> 00:16:55.459
by many many people. Now this photograph
definitely violates Facebook's terms of
00:16:55.459 --> 00:17:00.380
service. Buuut Kim Kardashian's really
famous and makes a lot of money. So in
00:17:00.380 --> 00:17:06.779
most instances as far as I can tell this
photo was totally fine on Facebook. Now
00:17:06.779 --> 00:17:11.169
let's talk about those rules a little bit.
Facebook says that they restrict nudity
00:17:11.169 --> 00:17:15.749
unless it is art. So they do make an
exception for art which may be why they
00:17:15.749 --> 00:17:21.169
allowed that image of Kim Kardashian's
behind to stay up. Art is defined by the
00:17:21.169 --> 00:17:26.128
individual. And yet at the same time that
you know they make clear that that's let's
00:17:26.128 --> 00:17:30.420
say a photograph of Michelangelo's David
or a photograph of another piece of art in
00:17:30.420 --> 00:17:34.210
a museum would be perfectly acceptable
whereas you know you're sort of average
00:17:34.210 --> 00:17:39.090
nudity maybe probably is not going to be
allowed to remain on the platform. They
00:17:39.090 --> 00:17:42.970
also note that they restrict the display
of nudity to ensure that their global..
00:17:42.970 --> 00:17:46.379
because their global community may be
sensitive to this type of content
00:17:46.379 --> 00:17:50.120
particularly because of their cultural
background or age. So this is Facebook in
00:17:50.120 --> 00:17:54.909
their community standards telling you
explicitly that they are toning down free
00:17:54.909 --> 00:18:01.789
speech to make everyone happy. This is
another photograph. Germans are
00:18:01.789 --> 00:18:07.480
particularly I'm interested. Is everyone
familiar with the show the Golden Girls?
00:18:07.480 --> 00:18:10.929
OK. Quite a few. So you might recognize
her she was Dorothea on the Golden Girls
00:18:10.929 --> 00:18:15.090
this is the actress Bea Arthur and this is
from a painting from 1991 by John Curran
00:18:15.090 --> 00:18:19.289
of her. It's unclear whether or not she
sat for the painting. It's a wonderful
00:18:19.289 --> 00:18:23.590
image, it's beautiful it's very beautiful
portrait of her. But I posted it on
00:18:23.590 --> 00:18:28.180
Facebook several times in a week. I
encouraged my friends to report it. And in
00:18:28.180 --> 00:18:36.010
fact Facebook found this to not be art.
Sorry. Another image this is by an artist
00:18:36.010 --> 00:18:40.730
a Canadian artist called Rupi Kaur. She
posted a series of images in which she was
00:18:40.730 --> 00:18:45.509
menstruating, she was trying to
essentially describe the normal the
00:18:45.509 --> 00:18:49.580
normality of this. The fact that this is
something that all women go through. Most
00:18:49.580 --> 00:18:56.909
women go through. And as a result
Instagram denied. Unclear on the reasons,
00:18:56.909 --> 00:19:01.100
they told her that had violated the terms
of service but weren't exactly clear as to
00:19:01.100 --> 00:19:06.039
why. And finally this is another one. This
is by an artist friend of mine, I'm afraid
00:19:06.039 --> 00:19:09.951
that I have completely blanked on who did
this particular piece, but what it was is:
00:19:09.951 --> 00:19:16.370
They took famous works of nude art and had
sex workers pose in the same poses as the
00:19:16.370 --> 00:19:19.980
pieces of art. I thought it was a really
cool project but Google Plus did not find
00:19:19.980 --> 00:19:23.919
that to be a really cool project. And
because of their guidelines on nudity they
00:19:23.919 --> 00:19:30.909
banned it. This is a cat. Just want to
make sure you're awake. It was totally
00:19:30.909 --> 00:19:37.629
allowed. So in addition to the problems of
content moderation I'm gonna go ahead and
00:19:37.629 --> 00:19:41.290
say that we also have a major diversity
problem at these companies. These
00:19:41.290 --> 00:19:45.509
statistics are facts these are from all of
these companies themselves. They put out
00:19:45.509 --> 00:19:51.109
diversity reports recently or as I like to
call them diversity reports and they show
00:19:51.109 --> 00:19:54.250
that. So the statistics are a little bit
different because they only capture data
00:19:54.250 --> 00:19:59.249
on ethnicity or nationality in their US
offices just because of how those
00:19:59.249 --> 00:20:02.710
standards are sort of odd all over the
world. So the first stats referred to
00:20:02.710 --> 00:20:06.690
their global staff. The second ones in
each line refer to their U.S. staff but as
00:20:06.690 --> 00:20:10.749
you can see these companies are largely
made of white men which is probably not
00:20:10.749 --> 00:20:16.080
surprising but it is a problem. Now why is
that a problem? Particularly when you're
00:20:16.080 --> 00:20:20.440
talking about policy teams the people who
build policies and regulations have an
00:20:20.440 --> 00:20:24.499
inherent bias. We all have an inherent
bias. But what we've seen in this is
00:20:24.499 --> 00:20:30.460
really a bias of sort of the American
style of prudeness. Nudity is not allowed
00:20:30.460 --> 00:20:34.669
but violence extreme violence as long as
it's fictional is totally OK. And that's
00:20:34.669 --> 00:20:39.221
generally how these platforms operate. And
so I think that when we ensure that there
00:20:39.221 --> 00:20:44.779
is diversity in the teams creating both
our tools our technology and our policies,
00:20:44.779 --> 00:20:49.200
then we can ensure that diverse world
views are brought into those that creation
00:20:49.200 --> 00:20:56.479
process and that the policies are
therefore more just. So what can we do
00:20:56.479 --> 00:21:00.840
about this problem? As consumers as
technologists as activists as whomever you
00:21:00.840 --> 00:21:04.940
might identify as. In the first one I
think a lot of the technologists are gonna
00:21:04.940 --> 00:21:08.779
agree with: Develop decentralized
networks. We need to work toward that
00:21:08.779 --> 00:21:12.409
ideal because these companies are not
getting any smaller. We're not gonna
00:21:12.409 --> 00:21:16.279
necessarily go out and say that they're
too big to fail but they are massive and
00:21:16.279 --> 00:21:20.479
as Matthew noted earlier they're buying up
properties all over the place and making
00:21:20.479 --> 00:21:25.399
sure that they do have control over our
speech. The second thing is to push for
00:21:25.399 --> 00:21:29.830
greater transparency around terms of
service takedowns. Now I'm not a huge fan
00:21:29.830 --> 00:21:33.210
of transparency for the sake of
transparency. I think that these, you
00:21:33.210 --> 00:21:36.509
know, these companies have been putting
out transparency reports for a long time
00:21:36.509 --> 00:21:42.379
that show what countries ask them to take
down content or hand over user data. But
00:21:42.379 --> 00:21:48.330
we've seen those transparency reports to
be incredibly flawed already. And so in
00:21:48.330 --> 00:21:51.529
pushing for greater transparency around
terms of service take downs that's only a
00:21:51.529 --> 00:21:55.809
first step. The third thing is, we need to
demand that these companies adhere to
00:21:55.809 --> 00:21:59.260
global speech standards. We already have
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
00:21:59.260 --> 00:22:03.950
I don't understand why we need companies
to develop their own bespoke rules. And so
00:22:03.950 --> 00:22:10.509
by..
applause
00:22:10.509 --> 00:22:13.679
And so by demanding that companies adhere
to global speech standards we can ensure
00:22:13.679 --> 00:22:17.519
that these are places of free expression
because it is unrealistic to just tell
00:22:17.519 --> 00:22:21.029
people to get off Facebook. I can't tell
you how many times in the tech community
00:22:21.029 --> 00:22:26.230
over the years I've heard people say well
if you don't like it just leave. That's
00:22:26.230 --> 00:22:29.519
not a realistic option for many people
around the world and I think we all know
00:22:29.519 --> 00:22:32.229
that deep down.
applause
00:22:32.229 --> 00:22:38.690
Thank you. And so the other thing I would
say though is that public pressure works.
00:22:38.690 --> 00:22:42.940
We saw last year with Facebook's real name
policy there are a number of drag
00:22:42.940 --> 00:22:46.899
performers in the San Francisco Bay Area
who were kicked off the platform because
00:22:46.899 --> 00:22:50.090
they were using their performance - their
drag names - which is a completely
00:22:50.090 --> 00:22:54.739
legitimate thing to do just as folks have
hacker names or other pseudonyms. But
00:22:54.739 --> 00:22:58.849
those folks pushed back. They formed a
coalition and they got Facebook to change
00:22:58.849 --> 00:23:04.239
a little bit. It's not completely there
yet but they're making progress and I'm
00:23:04.239 --> 00:23:09.119
hoping that this goes well. And then the
last thing is and this is totally a pitch
00:23:09.119 --> 00:23:13.249
thrown right out there: Support projects
like ours I'm gonna throw to Matthew to
00:23:13.249 --> 00:23:16.970
talk about onlinecensorship.org and
another project done by the excellent
00:23:16.970 --> 00:23:21.289
Rebecca MacKinnon called
ranking digital rights.
00:23:21.289 --> 00:23:25.320
M: So just a little bit of thinking
outside the box onlinecensorship.org is a
00:23:25.320 --> 00:23:31.630
platform that's recently launched. Users
can go onto the platform and submit a
00:23:31.630 --> 00:23:36.590
small questionnaire if their content has
been taken down by the platforms. Why we
00:23:36.590 --> 00:23:39.460
think this is exciting is because right
now as we mentioned that transparency
00:23:39.460 --> 00:23:45.169
reports are fundamentally flawed. We are
looking to crowdsource information about
00:23:45.169 --> 00:23:49.090
the ways in which the social media
companies, six social media companies, are
00:23:49.090 --> 00:23:53.940
moderating and taking down content because
we can't know exactly what kind of
00:23:53.940 --> 00:23:57.159
accountability and transparency in real
time. We're hoping to be able to find
00:23:57.159 --> 00:24:03.999
trends both across the kind of conduct has
been taking down, geographic trends, news
00:24:03.999 --> 00:24:08.350
related trends within sort of
self-reported content takedown. But it's
00:24:08.350 --> 00:24:12.710
platforms like these that I think that
hopefully will begin to spring up in
00:24:12.710 --> 00:24:18.370
response for the community to be able to
put tools in place that people can be a
00:24:18.370 --> 00:24:21.539
part of the poor porting
and Transparency Initiative.
00:24:21.539 --> 00:24:24.269
J: We launched about a month ago and were
hoping to put out our first set of reports
00:24:24.269 --> 00:24:29.059
around March. And finally I just want to
close with one more quote before we slip
00:24:29.059 --> 00:24:33.740
into Q&A and that is just to save it. It's
reasonable that we press Facebook on these
00:24:33.740 --> 00:24:37.409
questions of public responsibility, while
also acknowledging that Facebook cannot be
00:24:37.409 --> 00:24:41.159
all things to all people. We can demand
that their design decisions and user
00:24:41.159 --> 00:24:45.950
policies standard for review explicit
thoughtful and open to public
00:24:45.950 --> 00:24:50.200
deliberation. But - and this is the most
important part in my view - the choices that
00:24:50.200 --> 00:24:54.549
Facebook makes in their design and in
their policies or value judgments. This is
00:24:54.549 --> 00:24:57.929
political and I know you've heard that in
a lot of talk. So have I. But I think we
00:24:57.929 --> 00:25:01.700
can't, we cannot forget that this is all
political and we have to address it as
00:25:01.700 --> 00:25:06.460
such. And for someone if that means you
know quitting the platform thats fine too.
00:25:06.460 --> 00:25:09.139
But I think that we should still
understand that our friends our relatives
00:25:09.139 --> 00:25:13.349
our families are using these platforms and
that we do owe it to everybody to make
00:25:13.349 --> 00:25:17.969
them a better place for free expression
and privacy. Thank you.
00:25:17.969 --> 00:25:23.780
applause
00:25:23.780 --> 00:25:28.629
Herald: Thank you so much. So please now
we have a section of Q&A for anyone who
00:25:28.629 --> 00:25:36.110
has a question please use one of the mikes
on the site's. And I think we have a
00:25:36.110 --> 00:25:44.259
question from one of our viewers? No. OK.
Please proceed numer one.
00:25:44.259 --> 00:25:48.859
Mike 1: You just addressed that I am sort
of especially after listening to your talk
00:25:48.859 --> 00:25:55.499
I'm sort of on the verge of quitting
Facebook or starting to I don't know.
00:25:55.499 --> 00:26:00.200
applause
Yeah, I mean and I agree it's a hard
00:26:00.200 --> 00:26:07.200
decision. I've been on Facebook for I
think six years now and it is a dispute
00:26:07.200 --> 00:26:12.729
for me myself. So, I'm in this very
strange position. And now I have to kind
00:26:12.729 --> 00:26:18.389
of decide what to do. Are there any.. is
there any help for me out there to tell me
00:26:18.389 --> 00:26:26.269
what would be.. I don't know what.. that
takes my state and helps me in deciding..
00:26:26.269 --> 00:26:28.950
I don't know. It's strange.
00:26:28.950 --> 00:26:33.639
J: That's such a hard question. I mean
I'm.. I'll put on my privacy hat for just
00:26:33.639 --> 00:26:38.809
a second and say what I would say to
people when they're making that
00:26:38.809 --> 00:26:41.389
consideration from a privacy view point
because they do think that the
00:26:41.389 --> 00:26:44.849
implications of privacy on these platforms
is often much more severe than those of
00:26:44.849 --> 00:26:49.390
speech. But this is what I do. So in that
case you know I think it's really about
00:26:49.390 --> 00:26:54.249
understanding your threat model of
understanding what sort of threat you're
00:26:54.249 --> 00:26:57.799
under when it comes to you know the data
collection that these companies are
00:26:57.799 --> 00:27:01.850
undertaking as well as the censorship of
course. But I think it really is a
00:27:01.850 --> 00:27:04.989
personal decision and I I'm sure that
there are - you know - there are great
00:27:04.989 --> 00:27:09.460
resources out there around digital
security and around thinking through those
00:27:09.460 --> 00:27:12.859
thread model processes and perhaps that
could be of help to you for that. If you
00:27:12.859 --> 00:27:17.210
want to add?
M: No I mean I think it's, it's one of
00:27:17.210 --> 00:27:21.059
these big toss ups like this is a system
in which that many people are connected
00:27:21.059 --> 00:27:26.369
through even sometimes e-mail addresses
rollover and Facebook. And so I think it's
00:27:26.369 --> 00:27:30.059
the opportunity cost by leaving a
platform. What do you have to lose, what
00:27:30.059 --> 00:27:34.619
do you have to gain. But it's also
important remember that well the snapshot
00:27:34.619 --> 00:27:40.350
we see of Facebook now it's not gonna get
any it's probably not gonna get better.
00:27:40.350 --> 00:27:44.440
It's probably gonna be more invasive and
in coming into different parts of our
00:27:44.440 --> 00:27:49.710
lives so I think from the security and
privacy aspect it's really just up to the
00:27:49.710 --> 00:27:54.019
individual.
Mike 1: Short follow up - if I am allowed
00:27:54.019 --> 00:28:03.369
to - I don't see the.. the main point for
me is not my personal implications so I am
00:28:03.369 --> 00:28:08.929
quite aware that Facebook is a bad thing
and I can leave it, but I'm sort of
00:28:08.929 --> 00:28:13.649
thinking about it's way past the point
where we can decide on our own and decide:
00:28:13.649 --> 00:28:17.520
OK, is it good for me or is it good for my
friend or is it good for my mom or for my
00:28:17.520 --> 00:28:23.629
dad or whatever? We have to think about:
Is Facebook as such for society is a good
00:28:23.629 --> 00:28:28.409
thing - as you are addressing. So I think
we have to drive this decision making from
00:28:28.409 --> 00:28:34.529
one person to a lot, lot, lot of persons.
J: I agree and I'll note. What we're
00:28:34.529 --> 00:28:36.809
talking about..
applause
00:28:36.809 --> 00:28:41.399
- I agree. What we're talking about in the
project that we work on together is a
00:28:41.399 --> 00:28:45.049
small piece of the broader issue and I
agree that this needs to be tackled from
00:28:45.049 --> 00:28:49.179
many angles.
Herald: Ok, we have a question from one of
00:28:49.179 --> 00:28:51.999
our viewers on the Internet, please.
Signal Angel: Yeah, one of the questions
00:28:51.999 --> 00:28:55.500
from the internet is: Aren't the
moderators the real problem who bann
00:28:55.500 --> 00:29:02.729
everything which they don't really like
rather than the providers of the service?
00:29:02.729 --> 00:29:05.789
Herald: Can you please repeat that?
Signal Angel: The question was if the
00:29:05.789 --> 00:29:10.799
moderators sometimes volunteers aren't the
problem because they bann everything that
00:29:10.799 --> 00:29:15.169
they don't like rather than the providers
of a certain service?
00:29:15.169 --> 00:29:19.899
J: Ahm, no I mean I would say that the
content moderators.. we don't know who
00:29:19.899 --> 00:29:23.190
they are, so that's part of the issue, as
we don't know and I've - you know - I've
00:29:23.190 --> 00:29:27.149
heard many allegations over the years when
certain content's been taken down in a
00:29:27.149 --> 00:29:30.799
certain local or cultural context
particularly in the Arab world. I've heard
00:29:30.799 --> 00:29:34.629
the accusation that like oh those content
moderators are pro Sisi the dictator in
00:29:34.629 --> 00:29:39.249
Egypt or whatever. I'm not sure how much
merit that holds because like I said we
00:29:39.249 --> 00:29:44.869
don't know who they are. But I would say
is that they're not.. it doesn't feel like
00:29:44.869 --> 00:29:48.529
they're given the resources to do their
jobs well, so even if they were the best
00:29:48.529 --> 00:29:53.080
most neutral people on earth they're given
very little time probably very little
00:29:53.080 --> 00:29:58.509
money and not a whole lot of resources to
work with in making those determinations.
00:29:58.509 --> 00:30:01.419
Herald: Thank you. We take a question from
Mike 3 please.
00:30:01.419 --> 00:30:06.229
Mike 3: Test, test. OK. First off, thank
you so much for the talk. And I just have
00:30:06.229 --> 00:30:12.039
a basic question. So it seems logical that
Facebook is trying to put out this mantra
00:30:12.039 --> 00:30:16.749
of protect the children. I can kind of get
behind that. And it also seems based on
00:30:16.749 --> 00:30:20.530
the fact that they have the "real names
policy" that they would also expect you to
00:30:20.530 --> 00:30:25.560
put in a real legal age. So if they're
trying to censor things like nudity: Why
00:30:25.560 --> 00:30:30.719
couldn't they simply use things like age
as criteria to protect children from
00:30:30.719 --> 00:30:34.239
nudity. While letting everyone else who is
above the legal age make their own
00:30:34.239 --> 00:30:38.149
decision?
J: You wanna take that?
00:30:38.149 --> 00:30:43.769
M: I think it's a few factors one: It's I
guess on the technical side what on the
00:30:43.769 --> 00:30:48.339
technical side, what constitutes nudity.
And in a process way if it does get
00:30:48.339 --> 00:30:53.100
flagged as when something is flagged do
you have a channel or two boxes to say
00:30:53.100 --> 00:30:57.589
what sort of content I could use a system
in which that content flagged as nudity
00:30:57.589 --> 00:31:02.499
gets referred to a special nudity
moderator and then the moderator says:
00:31:02.499 --> 00:31:10.019
"Yes is nudity" then filter all less than
- you know - legal age or whatever age.
00:31:10.019 --> 00:31:14.809
But I think it's part of a broader more
systematic approach by Facebook. It's the
00:31:14.809 --> 00:31:22.320
broad strokes. It's really kind of
dictating this digital baseline this
00:31:22.320 --> 00:31:26.769
digital morality baseline and we're
saying: "No". Anybody in the world cannot
00:31:26.769 --> 00:31:30.519
see this. These are our hard lines and it
doesn't matter what age you are where you
00:31:30.519 --> 00:31:34.249
reside. This is the box in which we are
placing you in and content that falls
00:31:34.249 --> 00:31:38.559
outside of this box for anybody,
regardless of age or origin, that these
00:31:38.559 --> 00:31:43.459
this is what we say you can see and
anything that falls out that you risk
00:31:43.459 --> 00:31:47.549
having your account suspended. So I think
it's a mechanism of control.
00:31:47.549 --> 00:31:50.729
Herald: Thank you so much. I think
unfortunately we're run out of time for
00:31:50.729 --> 00:31:53.880
questions. I would like to apologize for
everyone who's standing maybe you have
00:31:53.880 --> 00:32:01.259
time to discuss that afterwards. Thank you
everyone and thank you.
00:32:01.259 --> 00:32:07.972
applause
00:32:07.972 --> 00:32:12.801
postrol music
00:32:12.801 --> 00:32:20.000
subtitles created by c3subtitles.de
Join, and help us!