Source Code: Your daily look at what matters in tech.

source-codesource codeauthorAndrea PetersonNoneWant your finger on the pulse of everything that's happening in tech? Sign up to get David Pierce's daily newsletter.64fd3cbe9f
×

Get access to Protocol

Your information will be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy

I’m already a subscriber
Politics

Facebook said what about content regulations?

A new white paper proposes "a way forward" on content rules.

Vera Jourova and Mark Zuckerberg

Facebook released a 22-page white paper in tandem with Mark Zuckerberg's meeting with EU regulators.

Photo: AFP via Getty Images

Facebook knows more rules are coming on harmful content, so it's doing what it can to shape them.

In a 22-page white paper released Monday in tandem with Mark Zuckerberg's meeting with EU regulators, Facebook's VP of content policy Monika Bickert wrestles with big questions about speech online and lays out a policy roadmap for regulating content — a roadmap that borrows from the company's existing procedures, including transparency reports and channels for users to report content. Except now, Facebook is encouraging governments to adopt similar policies as regulations, along with a new liability model, as it pushes for global standards for managing harmful content. It's a shift that would make it easier for the company to navigate a world of fractured national requirements.

Get what matters in tech, in your inbox every morning. Sign up for Source Code.

It's "more of a summation of the thinking and conversations about this topic that have been happening for several years than anything else," said Renée DiResta, research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory.

"I don't see much that's new," she added.

As suggested by the paper's timing, it's targeted at the very regulators Zuckerberg is attempting to charm right now.

"It's important to understand that this white paper is talking about regulation outside the U.S.," said St. John's Law professor Kate Klonick.

Several countries, including Germany and Australia, have enacted laws with stiff penalties for companies that fail to remove certain content within certain timeframes, drawing complaints from companies including Facebook.

Here are four key highlights from the white paper — and what they mean:

'Preserving free expression'

"In the United States, for example, the First Amendment protects a citizen's ability to engage in dialogue online without government interference except in the narrowest of circumstances. Citizens in other countries often have different expectations about freedom of expression, and governments have different expectations about platform accountability. Unfortunately, some of the laws passed so far do not always strike the appropriate balance between speech and harm, unintentionally pushing platforms to err too much on the side of removing content." (Page 4)

The paper opens with an extended meditation on free expression and acknowledges that private platforms like itself are "increasingly" the ones making determinations about what speech is allowable online. But the section above flags that Facebook is most concerned about regulation outside the U.S., while throwing shade at some established laws.

Without explicitly addressing them, the paper is "clearly a response" to two laws, Klonick said: the German Network Enforcement Act (or NetzDG) and the United Kingdom's currently in-process Online Harms regulations.

NetzDG is aimed at limiting the spread of hate speech, which is illegal in Germany. It was passed by Germany's Bundestag in 2017 — and Facebook already faced fines for allegedly violating it. The law includes a 24-hour removal requirement for material that breaks German hate speech law and penalties of up 50 million euros for violations.

However, human rights activists also criticized that law for being over-broad and potentially infringing on freedom of expression rights. Civil liberties advocates are also worried about censorship when it comes to proposed U.K. regulation.

'Systems and procedures' vs. 'performance targets'

"By requiring systems such as user-friendly channels for reporting content or external oversight of policies or enforcement decisions, and by requiring procedures such as periodic public reporting of enforcement data, regulation could provide governments and individuals the information they need to accurately judge social media companies' efforts." (Page 9)

When it comes to regulatory models, Facebook argues in favor of an approach that requires various "systems and procedures." If that sounds familiar, it's because they are already built into Facebook's current operations.

The company also makes a case against establishing "performance targets" for companies, such as fines if companies don't keep harmful content below a certain threshold. That approach could create "perverse incentives," the company argues, and lead to procedures that do more to juice the required metrics than actually stop the spread of harmful content.

For example, the company argues that pushing for removal within 24 hours, as the German law does, could make it so companies don't proactively search for and remove offending comments that are outside that timeframe to appear better in reporting.

'Harmful content'

"Among types of content most likely to be outlawed, such as content supporting terrorism and content related to the sexual exploitation of children, there is significant variance in laws and enforcement. In some jurisdictions, for instance, images of child sexual exploitation are lawful if they are computer generated. In others, praise of terror groups is permitted, and lists of proscribed terror groups vary widely by country and region. Laws vary even more in areas such as hate speech, harassment, or misinformation. Many governments are grappling with how to approach the spread of misinformation, but few have outlawed it." (Page 17)

One big issue Facebook has come up against is that laws already on the books aren't very specific about what it means for content harmful or the kind of remedy companies should deliver. For example, Australia passed a law in the aftermath of the Christchurch shooting that called on social media companies to remove "abhorrent violent material," defined as videos of rapes, murders, and terrorist attacks — but the timeline for that removal, "expeditiously," is open to a lot of interpretation.

Ultimately, rather than talk about specific content that should be regulated, Facebook argues that governments should consider a few issues before deciding how to approach such content. Among them, that their rules could "be enforced practically, at scale, with limited context about the speaker and content" and take into account the nature of the content (private vs. public, permanent vs. ephemeral) while providing "flexibility so that platforms can adapt policies to emerging language trends."

What's next?

"Any national regulatory approach to addressing harmful content should respect the global scale of the internet and the value of cross-border communications. It should aim to increase interoperability among regulators and regulations. However, governments should not impose their standards onto other countries' citizens through the courts or any other means." (Page 19)

The paper builds on a point CEO Mark Zuckerburg made in a Washington Post op-ed last year, when he argued "we need a more standardized approach" to combating harmful content like hate and terrorist speech online. And while the policy content may not be a revelation, its release makes clear the direction Facebook hopes larger global conversations about content moderation will go: toward an integrated system that acknowledges the reality that global platforms will inevitably help drive.

Some in the tech industry seem on board. For example, Twitter Director of Public Policy Strategy Nick Pickles thanked Facebook for the report — naturally, via tweet — calling it "an important contribution to the debate on tech regulation."

However, the European lawmakers Facebook was likely trying to woo seem less enthused.

"It's not for us to adapt to those companies, but for them to adapt to us," said Europe's commissioner for internal markets Thierry Breton, according to a POLITICO report.
Power

The video game industry is bracing for its Netflix and Spotify moment

Subscription gaming promises to upend gaming. The jury's out on whether that's a good thing.

It's not clear what might fall through the cracks if most of the biggest game studios transition away from selling individual games and instead embrace a mix of free-to-play and subscription bundling.

Image: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Subscription services are coming for the game industry, and the shift could shake up the largest and most lucrative entertainment sector in the world. These services started as small, closed offerings typically available on only a handful of hardware platforms. Now, they're expanding to mobile phones and smart TVs, and promising to radically change the economics of how games are funded, developed and distributed.

Of the biggest companies in gaming today, Amazon, Apple, Electronic Arts, Google, Microsoft, Nintendo, Nvidia, Sony and Ubisoft all operate some form of game subscription. Far and away the most ambitious of them is Microsoft's Xbox Game Pass, featuring more than 100 games for $9.99 a month and including even brand-new titles the day they release. As of January, Game Pass had more than 18 million subscribers, and Microsoft's aggressive investment in a subscription future has become a catalyst for an industrywide reckoning on the likelihood and viability of such a model becoming standard.

Keep Reading Show less
Nick Statt
Nick Statt is Protocol's video game reporter. Prior to joining Protocol, he was news editor at The Verge covering the gaming industry, mobile apps and antitrust out of San Francisco, in addition to managing coverage of Silicon Valley tech giants and startups. He now resides in Rochester, New York, home of the garbage plate and, completely coincidentally, the World Video Game Hall of Fame. He can be reached at nstatt@protocol.com.

Over the last year, financial institutions have experienced unprecedented demand from their customers for exposure to cryptocurrency, and we've seen an inflow of institutional dollars driving bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to record prices. Some banks have already launched cryptocurrency programs, but many more are evaluating the market.

That's why we've created the Crypto Maturity Model: an iterative roadmap for cryptocurrency product rollout, enabling financial institutions to evaluate market opportunities while addressing compliance requirements.

Keep Reading Show less
Caitlin Barnett, Chainanalysis
Caitlin’s legal and compliance experience encompasses both cryptocurrency and traditional finance. As Director of Regulation and Compliance at Chainalysis, she helps leading financial institutions strategize and build compliance programs in order to adopt cryptocurrencies and offer new products to their customers. In addition, Caitlin helps facilitate dialogue with regulators and the industry on key policy issues within the cryptocurrency industry.
Protocol | Policy

Lina Khan wants to hear from you

The new FTC chair is trying to get herself, and the sometimes timid tech-regulating agency she oversees, up to speed while she still can.

Lina Khan is trying to push the FTC to corral tech companies

Photo: Graeme Jennings/AFP via Getty Images

"When you're in D.C., it's very easy to lose connection with the very real issues that people are facing," said Lina Khan, the FTC's new chair.

Khan made her debut as chair before the press on Wednesday, showing up to a media event carrying an old maroon book from the agency's library and calling herself a "huge nerd" on FTC history. She launched into explaining how much she enjoys the open commission meetings she's pioneered since taking over in June. That's especially true of the marathon public comment sessions that have wrapped up each of the two meetings so far.

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.

Protocol | Fintech

Beyond Robinhood: Stock exchange rebates are under scrutiny too

Some critics have compared the way exchanges attract orders from customers to the payment for order flow system that has enriched retail brokers.

The New York Stock Exchange is now owned by the Intercontinental Exchange.

Photo: Aditya Vyas/Unsplash

As questions pile up about how powerful and little-known Wall Street entities rake in profits from stock trading, the exchanges that handle vast portions of everyday trading are being scrutinized for how they make money, too.

One mechanism in particular — exchange rebates, or payments from the exchanges for getting certain trades routed to them — has raised concerns with regulators and members of Congress.

Keep Reading Show less
Tomio Geron

Tomio Geron ( @tomiogeron) is a San Francisco-based reporter covering fintech. He was previously a reporter and editor at The Wall Street Journal, covering venture capital and startups. Before that, he worked as a staff writer at Forbes, covering social media and venture capital, and also edited the Midas List of top tech investors. He has also worked at newspapers covering crime, courts, health and other topics. He can be reached at tgeron@protocol.com or tgeron@protonmail.com.

Protocol | Workplace

The Activision Blizzard lawsuit has opened the floodgates

An employee walkout, a tumbling stock price and damning new reports of misconduct.

Activision Blizzard is being sued for widespread sexism, harassment and discrimination.

Photo: Bloomberg/Getty Images

Activision Blizzard is in crisis mode. The World of Warcraft publisher was the subject of a shocking lawsuit filed by California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing last week over claims of widespread sexism, harassment and discrimination against female employees. The resulting fallout has only intensified by the day, culminating in a 500-person walkout at the headquarters of Blizzard Entertainment in Irvine on Wednesday.

The company's stock price has tumbled nearly 10% this week, and CEO Bobby Kotick acknowledged in a message to employees Tuesday that Activision Blizzard's initial response was "tone deaf." Meanwhile, there has been a continuous stream of new reports unearthing horrendous misconduct as more and more former and current employees speak out about the working conditions and alleged rampant misogyny at one of the video game industry's largest and most powerful employers.

Keep Reading Show less
Nick Statt
Nick Statt is Protocol's video game reporter. Prior to joining Protocol, he was news editor at The Verge covering the gaming industry, mobile apps and antitrust out of San Francisco, in addition to managing coverage of Silicon Valley tech giants and startups. He now resides in Rochester, New York, home of the garbage plate and, completely coincidentally, the World Video Game Hall of Fame. He can be reached at nstatt@protocol.com.
Latest Stories