Scholarlink

<p>The digital public forum has challenged many of our normative intuitions and assumptions. Many scholars have argued against the idea of free speech as a suitable guide for digital platforms’ content policies. This paper has two goals. Firstly, it suggests that there is a version of the free speech principle which is suitable for platforms that have adopted a commitment to free speech to guide their content curation&#xa0;strategies. I call it the Principle of Epistemic Resilience. Secondly, it aims to analyze some of the practical implications of the principle. It argues that upholding this principle in the digital public forum requires a comprehensive strategy, including (1) the automated removal and demotion of contents that threaten to cause serious harm; (2) changes to engagement optimization algorithms; and (3) changes to affordances inside the platform. These changes are necessary to create a fertile environment for deliberation, which is crucial to epistemic resilience. If such a comprehensive strategy is absent, platforms&#xa0;may actively undermine the societal value of speech.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

In Moderation: Automation in the Digital Public Sphere

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年1月18日

查看全文
  • Diana Acosta Navas

摘要

The digital public forum has challenged many of our normative intuitions and assumptions. Many scholars have argued against the idea of free speech as a suitable guide for digital platforms’ content policies. This paper has two goals. Firstly, it suggests that there is a version of the free speech principle which is suitable for platforms that have adopted a commitment to free speech to guide their content curation strategies. I call it the Principle of Epistemic Resilience. Secondly, it aims to analyze some of the practical implications of the principle. It argues that upholding this principle in the digital public forum requires a comprehensive strategy, including (1) the automated removal and demotion of contents that threaten to cause serious harm; (2) changes to engagement optimization algorithms; and (3) changes to affordances inside the platform. These changes are necessary to create a fertile environment for deliberation, which is crucial to epistemic resilience. If such a comprehensive strategy is absent, platforms may actively undermine the societal value of speech.