After January 6th, social media platforms faced pressure to strengthen their governance policies. The video examines how companies can build more robust frameworks for acceptable use while balancing free speech and safety concerns.
Platform governance is the set of decisions one makes around who can use a platform, under what circumstances, when will they be deprived of the ability to use it, under what, you know, with what sort of process will they be deprived of the ability to use it, and so on. Right. You can certainly cast it more broadly. I think there are broader aspects of it. There's questions around that touch on privacy and data usage and other things, but the core of it for us has been this closer to what you might call ethical use or acceptable use. Right. It's really this question of who can use a platform and under what circumstances. And that came to, you know, that's been an issue obviously for a long time for the information platforms for the social media companies. But what, particularly over the last few years and especially after the January 6th capital, call it insurrection, I don't know what we're calling it these days, but anyway, capital thing that happened is a bunch of companies that were well outside of the narrative on that question found themselves right in the middle of it. And so you have Amazon Web Service. As low level of an infrastructure provider, as you are going all the way pretty much to the bare metal of the Internet, except for the telcos who have a different kind of statutory framework that applies to them making decision to off board another platform parler and a set of other users as well, and effectively kick them off of the Internet. Obviously you have Twitter deciding independently that the President of the United States can no longer speak on its platform and so on, and without making any judgments about whether any decisions were the right decisions or wrong decisions. What happened was a bunch of companies realized they had really, they had sort of accepted acceptable use or similar kinds of policies, which often amounted to a sentence or two in terms of service. But those were effectively, you know, what we lawyers will call holding statements. Right. They were not. They were not. They were not often, they were not very well thought out. They will, they were. We will get back to this at some point in the future. What has happened after January is, I think a wide swath of companies have realized we really need to think much harder about this and build policies, frameworks and internal processes that are much better calibrated to deal with this set of issues. And so that's kind of why. And we had a number of those folks reach out to us partly because this is an area that I have spent a lot of time on in my career and one where I talked to a lot of my general counsel colleagues about when they understood kind of the mission that we were embarked on. You know, the discussion was, well, hey, this would be a great place if you could help us. This would be a great place to do it. And so that's. That's sort of. So that's why I say it's a little opportunistic, I think. I think if we had in November of last year, it was not the area where we were going to start. There were some other areas, but this one kind of rose. Rose to the fore.
O processo de reconhecer limites, mesmo quando a vida parece exigir sempre mais.
Depois de tantas histórias, aprendizados e pausas necessárias, o @interior_iza está de volta
