AI replaces moderators (again), governments replace nuance and Kim Cameron was right
Hello and welcome to Everything in Moderation's Week in Review, your need-to-know news and analysis about platform policy, content moderation and internet regulation. It's written by me, Ben Whitelaw and supported by paid members like you.
TrustCon — a mix of Glastonbury and Davos for the Trust & Safety industry — is fast-approaching and I'm excited to be taking part after a year away. If you're going to be there, hit reply so we can grab a coffee or, if it's more your bag, engage in some "fiber-maxxing". I'm not the only one looking forward to it, as today's Post of Note suggests.
Talking of Ctrl-Alt-Speech, I'm joined this week by Cori Crider, executive director of the Future of Technology Institute and co-founder of Foxglove. She explains why better social media bans are coming and how she's surprised Meta has any moderators left to fire. Patreon listeners can tune in now and it'll be live on public feeds later today.
Thanks for forgoing the lure of Korea’s dopamine sites to read today’s edition. This is your EiM Week in Review — BW
While hash-matching catches known content, generative AI has unleashed a wave of novel, un-fingerprinted CSAM and non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII) that reactive workflows cannot handle.
On July 9th, Resolver is hosting an expert panel featuring the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), SWGfL (StopNCII.org), and Reality Defender to map out the future of proactive platform defense.
Discover what a proactive detection architecture looks like in practice, how to intercept AI-generated material early, and how to align your workflows with shifting UK, US, and EU regulatory mandates.
Policies
New and emerging internet policy and online speech regulation
Australia has announced it will beef up the penalties for breaches of its social media ban, after claims that the biggest platforms “aren’t doing enough to comply with the law”. Prime minister Anthony Albanese doubled the proposed fine from $49.5m to $99m and gave the country’s regulator, the eSafety Commission, greater powers to investigate platforms for breaches of the law. It comes just weeks after researched published by the British Medical Journal found 85% of teens were still using at least one social media three months after the law came into force.
Hectic metrics: The BMJ research has placed further doubt on the effectiveness of teen bans but there’s a broader question emerging: at what point in time should we measure whether a ban is working or has worked? One academic writing for The Conversation has said “the full effects may not be clear for a decade” and the greatest opportunity is “with children under eight who have not yet started using social media”.
That might be true but a) that’s no use to the current teens and parents that worked hard to advocate for a ban and b) that’s not how politicians messaged the ban when it was announced. Anthony Albanese, for example, called it a way to “change lives for this and future generations”. (EiM #318)
Refusing to be left out of the child safety conversation, the US House of Representatives passed a package of bills this week that critics called “a mess” and would lead to “restrictive age-checking practices across their entire platforms”. The KIDS Act, which includes revised version of the controversial Kids Online Safety Act, instead focuses on specific design features and safeguards — which is a concern for youth-led organisations who believe the removed “duty of care” clause lets platforms off the hook.
Meanwhile, new public polling says a slim majority — 56% — of US adults would support a social media ban for teens. What's interesting to me is just how many — a further 23% — are unsure. A ban would likely run aground when tested against the First Amendment, but that undecided bloc could prove influential as lawmakers push towards regulating platforms in some form.