February 24, 2019

7:00-9:00 pm

Who Owns
Your Voice?
How and to what extent should
social media be moderated?

Page | 1
Table of Contents
Overview…………………………Page 3-4
Approach One:
Private Regulation……………..Page 5-6
Approach Two:
Government Regulation………Page 7-8
Approach Three:
User Regulation…………...……Page 9-10
Summary…………………………Page 11-13
Survey…………………………….Page 14
References…………………….....Page 15-17

Page | 2
 Overview
About Social Media What is a
Moderation Deliberation?
In this deliberation, we will be discussing A deliberation is NOT a
who should be allowed to moderate social debate. A deliberation is a
media. Social media is the main source of most discussion of beliefs and a
people’s news. Today, it is extremely easy to development of a deeper
post anything on the internet, making it very understanding for others values and
possible for incorrect information to influence the how they have formulated their
public. Nowadays, it is almost impossible to get ideas. A deliberation presents
the right story and to know whether the content
ideas (approaches) that aim to
found on the internet is entirely true.
reach a common ground, or stasis,
Along with moderation of misinformation between opposing viewpoints. A
comes the restriction of hate speech or anything deliberation does not intend to
that presents a “clear and present danger”, as prove one side right and another
decided in the landmark case “Schenck v. United side wrong; a deliberation attempts
States” of 1919. All of these potential issues to bring people with different beliefs
need to be monitored in some manner or another together through friendly discussion
to prevent further misinformation and speech of a controversial topic.
violations. In search of a resolution, several
approaches have been developed and will be
discussed throughout the course of the
deliberation.
All social media sites have some version of
a moderation policy and an avenue for users to
report posts that appear to violate this
policy. For example, Instagram has the policy of
removing “hate speech” from their platform.
However, there is no spec ification on what types
of posts are considered to be hate speech. Most
social media sites have similar policies which
further complicates the determination of whether
a post violates each specific policy. Does this
moderation violate the civil liberties of the
public? Should Instagram be allowed to remove
these posts? Is this censorship or moderation?
On the other hand, some companies do not
reveal their policies on moderation leaving many
violators questioning the validity of their removal.
This is exacerbated by the fact that most
moderation teams are comprised of computer
algorithms and unqualified employees. YouTube,
for example, is primarily moderated by a complex
algorithm, which catches most cases of
“community standards” violations, and human
moderators to resolve the many contested
Page | 3
violations.
 Different Approaches
Approach One: Private Regulation

Approach Two: Government Regulation

Approach Three: User Regulation

Page | 4
 Private Regulation
Should the private companies who own the social media platform take more responsibility in moderation?

About Approach One

Private regulation of social media is an
approach that is not so different from
what is currently taking place.
Essentially, the responsibility of
moderating content would fall solely
onto social media platforms. Today,
most social media content is being
moderated in one way or another,
ranging from every post being checked
before going live to having the user
base monitor and maintain the platform.
Backing this approach equates to
placing the power of moderation in the
hands of the private social media
platforms. This would in turn make the
platforms responsible for all of the
content published on their systems.
Additionally, the ideals of the private
market are maintained through this
strategy. Innovation and successful
moderation will be encouraged as the
public pressures these platforms to
develop and implement the required
technology and methodology to create a
safe platform for everyone to grow.

Benefits of this approach Drawbacks of this approach

➢ No government regulation eliminating
➢ Places large legal liability on large social
the need for tax dollars or bureaucratic
media companies. With the advancement
focus on the issue
of misinformation campaigns, any breach
➢ Allows for social media platforms to in their moderation systems will leave
implement the most effective moderating companies susceptible to enormous legal
systems as their are incentivized by the litigation
public backlash
➢ Does not provide an immediate solution to
➢ Supports free market ideals by ensuring controversial issue. Developing more
the best method of moderation will efficient systems will take time f or
flourish and ineffective solutions will not companies.
be supported.
➢ Some platforms would face potential
➢ Promotes innovation by allowing shutdowns until the proper moderating
companies to design the most effective systems were put in place
method of moderation
Page | 5
 Private Regulation
Should the private companies who own the social media platform take more responsibility in moderation?

Facebook and Fake

News
The issue first grabbed the attention
of the public in the aftermath of the
2016 U.S. presidential election.
Several sources, including facebook ,
have acknowledged that Russian
Operatives purchased inflammatory
Facebook ads that spread throughout
the website. This was just one of the
more notable examples of Fake News
on social media. Since then, social
media platforms have received an
increasing amount of backlash
regarding misinformation on their
systems. Of the many platforms,
Facebook received most of the public
backlash. While the primary focus
was the United States’s 2016
election, misinformation campaigns
have been launched on Facebook and
other social media platforms to
influence several elections, such as
the 2018 midterms and elections in
India, Mexico, and Brazil.

Platform or Publisher
Because misinformation on Facebook has been shown to impact significant world events, Mark
Zuckerberg was forced to testify before Congress regarding the misinformation on its site - the
2016 presidential election the primary focus. During the discourse, Z uckerberg identified
Facebook as a publisher, straying from the traditional claim that Facebook is merely a platform.
The difference is that a platform is just a system that allows the transfer of content, while a
publisher has the ability to mediate and d istribute content. As a publisher, Facebook takes on the
ability to pick and choose which content can remain on its platform. However, publishers carry
more responsibility as they are liable for all of the content on the platform.

A Promise of Tomorrow
After being placed under so much scrutiny by the public and media, Mark Zuckerberg and
Facebook accepted responsibility for the misinformation campaigns launched on their platform.
Facebook responded by implementing a system to help them shut down pages and posts with
misinformation. Since 2016, user engagement with Fake News has significantly decreased thanks
to their efforts. This has come despite the increasing amount of misinformation on other
platforms, such as Twitter, seeing as they have done nothing t o combat it. Once other companies
are held responsible, they will be forced to implement systems to better moderate their material.

Page | 6
Government Regulation
Is it in our best interest to have the government moderate social media?

About Approach Two

With the Internet becoming an increasingly significant
part of our lives, it is important that it remains a safe
place for everyone to interact and entertain
themselves. Considering the scope of the modern
Internet, moderating all of the discourse that occ urs
online would be a massive project. The only entity
large enough to potentially moderate the entire
Internet would be the federal government. While there
are already several laws in place in the US that
restrict what citizens and companies can do online ,
they have not been shown to be overwhelmingly
effective and many feel that it is a violation of the
constitutional protections of our free speech. Despite
this, there is a plausible argument to be made that
government moderation of the Internet would be more
effective if it was allowed to operate on a larger
scale, eliminating many currently existing loopholes.
If it can be shown that an expansion of the
government’s influence over the Internet will increase
its effectiveness, many would adopt the belief that the
benefits of cleaning up online discussion outweigh the
potential infringements upon our free speech rights.

Benefits of this approach Drawbacks of this approach

➢ more consistency in enforcement with the ➢ some activity that users expect to see
government as the sole moderator would be subject to moderation

➢ the people would have more control over ➢ very expensive for the
their Internet with elected officials as government to review every single post
moderators on every single website.

➢ the government would have more access to ➢ could be viewed as a greater invasion of
what is being said online which allows them privacy
to see illegal activity

Page | 7
Government Regulation
Is it in our best interest to have the government moderate social media?
Current Government
Involvement in
Moderation/Censorship
Presently, there are several laws
passed by Congress that restrict our use and
corporations’ use of the internet. Typically,
when we think of the restricting of o ur voices,
we immediately think of violation of the first
amendment of the Constitution. However,
there are laws that must act against total
freedom to prevent crimes from occurring.
Among these laws are the Child Pornography
Prevention Act of 1996. This l aw prevents the
hosting of child pornography online, including
virtual child pornography.
In the U.S., the majority of censorship
does just come down to the actions of private
individuals and corporations. Yes, conducting
illegal activity is not allowed o ver the
internet, but ultimately, the control is mostly
in the hands of the website hosts. To see
what more government involvement looks
like, we can look to other countries as
examples.
The Chinese government takes a very
significant role in the moderati on of their
peoples’ internet. There have been several
legislative actions taken in China to create
what is known as the “Great Firewall of
China”. Essentially, the Chinese government
is making sure that no one is plotting to
overthrow their government or cause any sort
of disturbance within their country. Also, they
prevent any “sexually suggestive material”
from being spread online, and they try to stop
those encouraging gambling, violence, or
murder. In order to do this, there are 100,000
Chinese government workers working round-
the-clock to ensure that their internet policy
is upkept in a massive project known as the
“Golden Shield”.
Possible Changes to U.S.
Government Involvement
The U.S. could potentially play
a larger role in the moderation of
forum and social media sites to
ensure the legality and factuality of
posts.
As we advance technologically,
the internet is becoming more and
more involved in our everyday life.
However, the large portion of
moderation is left entirely up to the
hosting websites. So, it may be
helpful for Congress to pass
legislation enabling our government
to be more involved, since
government moderation is a very
labor intensive job.
A possible solution to aid in this
process would be to hire government
workers similar to what China does.
Of course, we would have to have a
completely different code that our
moderators would be looking for
people to follow. Since China's
solution has been effective, an
adjustment to their policies and codes
for American internet may increase
overall internet moderation.
Page | 8
 User Regulation
Can we trust the user’s to keep themselves in check?

About Approach Three Benefits of this approach

Essentially, the self-regulation
➢ Protects free speech as a priority
approach is all about protecting social
media users’ freedom of speech online. ➢ Resolves issues and disputes
This is a vital part of moderation on the democratically
internet; if you take away citizens’ right to
express themselves freely on the internet, ➢ Gives social media users complete
you lose the point of having a democratic control over their content
forum for discussion. This is what is so ➢ Allow users to report/block freely
great about the Internet: it is primarily user -
based and provides a platform for all types ➢ Users will become more personally
of people to freely voice their opinions. educated
Under this approach, citizens would take
moderating content into their own hands.
This would rely on users being able to fully
Drawbacks of this approach
➢ May be difficult for users to come to an
monitor each other through reporting and
agreement during arbitrations/disputes
blocking to maintain a safe public forum.
Additionally, users would filter the type of ➢ Could lead to additional conflicts and
content they would personally prefer to see excessive reporting
or not see, giving them full freedom over
their social media experience. This would ➢ As a result, polarization of issues could
make the social media companies increase
accountable to the interests of the users,
not the other way around.

At the same time, however, users

clearly cannot be allowed to roam freely
and say whatever they want on an online
platform. Consequently, social media users
need to be educated on what exactly
constitutes as hate speech and abusive
content. An important part of this is crowd-
based forums and sites that enable internet
users to learn more about dangerous
speech on the Internet, as well as an
avenue to report other users for specific
online incidents. Furthermore, public
arbitration is a key way to resolve di sputes
and issues online.

Page | 9
 User Regulation
Can we trust the user’s to keep themselves in check?
Possible/existing implementations & consequences:
Some of the largest and most
influential websites today, such as
Wikipedia and Reddit, are publicly
moderated by their users. Aside from a
scant team of official website
administrators, the majority of these
sites’ content are submitted, reviewed,
and published by the users. However,
despite their similar ideals, their
approaches vary greatly, resulting in
significantly different levels of success
in moderation. Reddit essentially is an
online forum that consists of many
“subreddits,” or smaller forums based
around a common interest. Each forum
is owned and operated by a group of
moderators. These moderators have
complete power over the subreddit,
including the appointment of new
moderators.
While publicly moderated, Reddit’s
structure suppresses the democratic
qualities that make public moderation
desirable in the first place. By giving
some users power over entire forums,
Reddit’s public moderation looks less like
a democracy and more like an
aristocracy. On the other hand,
Wikipedia is much more successful in its
implementation of public moderation.
While Reddit’s moderators act
completely on their own judgement,
Wikipedia’s moderators are held to an
extensive list of policies and guidelines
ultimately based on Wikipedia’s
fundamental principles. Instead of each
moderator having absolute power in their
own domain, all moderators collaborate
with a common goal. Wikipedia is an
example of a massive success in public
moderation due to its democratic
processes and consistent procedures for
arbitrating conflicts.
Page | 10
 Summary
Approach One: Private Regulation
Pros
It is not about censorship but about the
responsibility of social media platforms.
Minimizes inappropriate content in order to protect
a social media industry’s brand.
More people are unlikely to use a social media
platform if it is full of inappropriate posts or
misleading information.
To not censor or moderate posts could lead to
fewer users, which could financially harm these
private companies.
Prevent false accounts from being created
Attempts to prevents confusion about what is true
or false
Approach Two: Government Regulation
Pros
Restricts major corporations’ ability to control the
flow of information
Could reduce risk of foreign tampering with
elections
Could lead to more consistency with regulation
enforcement
The people would have more control over their
internet with elected officials as moderators
Greater opportunity for the government to monitor
hate speech and illegal or terrorist activity
Monitoring of the internet could lead to a
regulation of misinformation and “fake news”
Cons
Social media platforms provide a window for many to
freely voice their opinions.
Social media grants everyone the ideals of free
speech therefore implementing moderation policies
could restrict these ideals.
However, one could also say to censor or moderate
posts could also lead to fewer users who want to
express their opinions online, which could also harm
these private companies financially.
How do you determine what should or not be
censored or moderated? Some users believe that
there could be some political bias when social media
platforms choose what to censor.
Lack of transparency
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cons
Could stifle the exchange of ideas
Policymakers creating the regulations are largely
unqualified to do so
Government would be allowed to determine what is
“true” and “false”
Some activity that users would expect to be able to
see would be subject to moderation
The cost of government moderation would be very
time, labor, and money-intensive
Many would see greater government involvement as
an invasion of privacy
Page | 11
 Summary
Approach Three: User Regulation
Pros
Protects free speech as a priority
Resolves issues and disputes democratically
Gives social media users complete control over
their content
Allow users to report/block freely
Users will become more personally educated
Public moderation held under pre-written
regulations is wildly successful (Wikipedia)
Cons
May be difficult for users to come to an agreement
during arbitrations/disputes
Could lead to additional conflicts and excessive
reporting
As a result, polarization of issues could increase
Moderation in the hands of only a few users
greater resembles aristocracy rather than
democracy (Reddit)
It is difficult to get social media platforms to act
against reported hate speech
Relying on user reports to moderate could result
in niche corners where hate speech thrives
Page | 12
How to conduct a Deliberation Subtitle

-Try to see things from both sides

-Analyze both the negative and positive consequences of an
approach
-Validate what someone says by recognizing the consequences and
values of their statement.
-Draw something out of what someone says in order to facilitate the
deliberation.
-If someone says something that you know is incorrect, ask them
how they came to that conclusion or what their sources are.
-Bring up various opinions in order to see where the room is at
because someone in the room may also share that opinion.
-Try to analyze why certain people feel the way they do.
-Avoid trying to convince audience of one approach.
-While deliberations should be directed by the audience, the
students should also be moderating it to stay on track in order to
avoid getting off topic.
-Make sure to encourage a deliberative, comfortable environment
instead of a tense, debateful one.

Page | 13
References
Post-Survey
How do you feel about the following Disagree Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Agree
statements? (Place a check) Disagree Agree

The deliberation made me rethink my

current values and opinions on the issue

The structure of the deliberation made it

easy to understand the topic

The deliberation gave me an idea I have not

thought about before

Social Media should be regulated more

Social Media should not be regulated at all;

“laissez-faire” type approach

The government has the right to be involved

in social media affairs

Private companies who own social media

platforms should take more responsibility in
moderating their sites

It is the individual user who owns what they

say online on various platforms

It is the private company who owns the

social media platform who owns what is
said on their platform

Page | 14
References
Arnold, Andrew. “Do We Really Need To Start Regulating Social Media?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 24 Aug. 2018,

www.forbes.com/sites/andrewarnold/2018/07/30/do-we-really-need-to-start-regulating-social-

media/#580e3083193d.

“Censorship On Social Media.” NPR, NPR, 11 Aug. 2018, www.npr.org/2018/08/11/637865162/censorship-on-social-

media.

Chaitin, Daniel, and Alex Brandon. “Reporter: FTC Can Regulate What's Real News, What's 'Fake News'.” Washington

Examiner, 31 Jan. 2017, www.washingtonexaminer.com/reporter-ftc-can-regulate-whats-real-news-whats-fake-

news.

“Content Moderation to Protect Your Brand: Benefits of Crowdsourcing Solutions.” CrowdSource, 29 Nov. 2015,

www.crowdsource.com/blog/2013/04/content-moderation-to-protect-your-brand-benefits-of-crowdsourcing-

solutions/.

“Eunice Mwabe – Medium.” Medium.com, Medium, medium.com/@eamwabe.

Fishbein, Rebecca. “How to Identify and Report Hate Speech on Social Media.” Lifehacker, Lifehacker.com, 17 Jan. 2019,

lifehacker.com/how-to-identify-and-report-hate-speech-on-social-media-1831018803.

HeinOnline, heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals%2Fyjolt17&i=42.

“Home.” Dangerous Speech Project, dangerousspeech.org/.

“Internet Censorship in the United States.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Feb. 2019,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_States.

Irvine, Amelia. “Don't Regulate Social Media Companies - Even If They Let Holocaust Deniers Speak.” USA Today,

Gannett Satellite Information Network, 19 July 2018, www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/19/dont-regulate-

social-media-despite-bias-facebook-twitter-youtube-column/796471002/.

Leetaru, Kalev. “Facebook's Deletion of Ramzan Kadyrov And Who Controls The Web?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 30

Dec. 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/12/29/facebooks-deletion-of-ramzan-kadyrov-and-who-

controls-the-web/#591b2ff96dc8.

Leetaru, Kalev. “Is Social Media Content Moderation An Impossible Task?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 8 Sept. 2018,

www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/09/08/is-social-media-content-moderation-an-impossible-

task/#71825c5f15fa.
Page | 15
Leetaru, Kalev. “Is Twitter Really Censoring Free Speech?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 12 Jan. 2018,

www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/01/12/is-twitter-really-censoring-free-speech/#694de83365f5.

MacBride, Elizabeth. “Should Facebook, Google Be Regulated? A Groundswell In Tech, Politics and Small Business Says

Yes.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 18 Nov. 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethmacbride/2017/11/18/should-

twitter-facebook-and-google-be-more-regulated/#165ea9671bc5.

[]. “Moderating Social Media Comments: Clearing the Confusion.” Government Technology: State & Local Government

News Articles, Emergency Management, www.govtech.com/social/Moderating-Social-Media-Comments-Clearing-

the-Confusion.html.

“Regulating Online Content Moderation.” The System Is Working the Way It Is Supposed to - Paul Butler - The Georgetown

Law Journal, georgetownlawjournal.org/articles/268/regulating-online-content-moderation.

Scorsie. “The Evolving Force of Censorship In a Social Media Landscape.” PUB800, 9 Feb. 2016,

tkbr.publishing.sfu.ca/pub802/2016/02/the-evolving-force-of-censorship-in-a-social-media-landscape/.

“The Twitter Rules.” Twitter, Twitter, help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules.

“Wiki.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 6 Jan. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki.

Yeoh, Derric, et al. “Is Online Dispute Resolution The Future of Alternative Dispute Resolution?” Kluwer
Arbitration Blog, 15 Mar. 2018, arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/03/29/online-dispute-resolution-future-
alternative-dispute-resolution/.

Page | 16
Image Links
➢ https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&authuser=0&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=937
&ei=bsJsXLbnOYLLjgTu363AAw&q=social+media&oq=social+media&gs_l=img.3..35i39l2j0l8.
2395.4058..4272...0.0..0.69.710.12......1....1..gws-wiz-
img.....0.5RTpFpfTYJM#imgrc=xgq8WfF6oo4opM:
➢ https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&authuser=0&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=937
&ei=bsJsXLbnOYLLjgTu363AAw&q=social+media&oq=social+media&gs_l=img.3..35i39l2j0l8.
2395.4058..4272...0.0..0.69.710.12......1....1..gws-wiz-
img.....0.5RTpFpfTYJM#imgrc=5O0s9bCIC7FyIM:
➢ https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&authuser=0&biw=1920&bih=937&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=v
8JsXMiHJ4rMjwTsoY-
wAg&q=government+regulation&oq=governme&gs_l=img.3.0.35i39j0l9.26779.28055..29363...
0.0..0.94.537.8......1....1..gws-wiz-img.V26Klfk4crU#imgrc=L-pI5BYslMXk5M:
➢ https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&authuser=0&biw=1920&bih=937&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=C
sNsXNvJCKHujwSxgYPgDg&q=heads+of+social+media&oq=head&gs_l=img.1.0.35i39j0i67l9.
23134.24917..26876...4.0..0.91.591.8......1....1..gws-wiz-
img.......0j0i10j0i5i30j0i10i24.rG8Zew0x9ao#imgrc=N3nvxG4LBOSzUM:
➢ https://coinpedia.org/news/us-government-protecting-cryptocurrencies/
➢ https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Emergency-at-911-call-center-understaffing-
11104754.php
➢ https://www.google.com/search?q=moderators+wanted&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS811US811&sour
ce=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX2JXeqcngAhVVyYMKHVXQAiQQ_AUIDigB&biw=
1920&bih=937#imgrc=9KG7m6GIjWFi0M:
➢ https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS811US811&biw=1920&bih=937&tbm=isc
h&sa=1&ei=n8NsXLqEC8rEjwTrvYyACg&q=summary&oq=summary&gs_l=img.3..35i39j0i67l3j
0l6.42517.43422..43648...0.0..0.78.491.7......1....1..gws-wiz-
img.Hr5s68E4Tfg#imgrc=da2BO2lw1wBL5M:
➢ www.twitter.com

Page | 17