European Commissioner Thierry Breton sent stern warnings to these platforms, emphasizing the potential impact on their business should they fail to comply with regulations under the Digital Services Act.
This European approach differs from the U.S., where the First Amendment shields a wide range of speech and restricts government intervention. Efforts by the U.S. government to encourage content moderation have faced legal challenges for potentially infringing on free speech rights.
In the U.S., there is no legal definition for hate speech or disinformation, making certain provisions of the Digital Services Act incompatible. The European stance allows regulators to pressure platforms more aggressively, signaling their close scrutiny of content moderation.
Under the DSA, large online platforms must establish robust mechanisms to remove hate speech and disinformation while balancing free expression. Non-compliance can lead to fines of up to 6% of global annual revenues.
In the U.S., a government threat of penalties is risky, and officials must carefully distinguish requests from enforcement actions. The contrast in approaches is evident in letters from New York AG Letitia James, which request information without threats of penalties.
The impact of these European rules and warnings on global content moderation remains uncertain, but social media companies may choose to apply them selectively. Individual users should have control over their content exposure, allowing them to make informed decisions about complex issues like the Israel-Gaza conflict, instead of relying on any country or law maker who have biased opinions.
Read next: Bard's Tale: Google Employees Question AI-based Chatbot's Magic
by Irfan Ahmad via Digital Information World
No comments:
Post a Comment