16885 research outputs found
Sort by
Speech Regulation by Algorithm
Get PDFThe rapid convergence of speech and technology on social media platforms means it is likely the case that, either now or soon, more expressive activity will be regulated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) than by any legislature, regulator, or other government entity. Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly told Congress and other audiences that AI is the key to resolving Facebook\u27s content moderation challenges, envisioning a moderation regime where algorithms detect and take down speech infringing Facebook\u27s Community Standards ex ante, that is, prior to its public posting and before it reaches other users. According to Zuckerberg, this would eventually replace its initial content moderation practices, which relied more on human moderators and user complaints than on automated detection and removal -- a system that can be slow, inconsistently applied, and often subjects front-line moderators to harrowing emotional harms by exposing them to the worst of the Internet.
This Article argues that private parties\u27 speech-regulation-by-algorithm is itself protected speech. Government efforts to regulate the content moderation of platforms will thus necessarily be barred by the First Amendment, even if that moderation is automated via AI. Nor would users whose speech has been regulated by AI have any better speech-related claims against AI-informed platform moderation decisions than they have had against nonautomated moderation, for the same reason. However, automated front-end filtering of user speech via AI is in serious tension with several core tenets of First Amendment doctrine. Ex ante AI-based content moderation operates in much the same way as a prior restraint; like government prepublication censorship, it gives users no notice of takedowns prior to publication, nor reasons for the takedown decision (at least reasons that a lay user would be capable of understanding). Additionally, it is already clear based on its current use, and the necessities of machine learning processes, that content-based speech regulation via AI is necessarily overinclusive, which is normally sufficient to find a law or regulation unconstitutional under the First Amendment -- a problem that will only grow worse as AI moderates more speech.
Given these concerns, this Article advocates for many of the same robust notice and procedural rights for platform users whose speech is regulated via AI, as the First Amendment compels of governments seeking to regulate private speakers
Civil Liberties (recording)
No full textThis panel will discuss the state secrets cases, several free speech cases on the docket and (time permitting) will also opine on the abortion and Second Amendment cases discussed Friday night
Resilience Planning Highlights
Get PDFGray Montrose with the Virginia Coastal Policy Center at the College of William & Mary presents on \u27Resilience Planning Highlights.\u27 This presentation was part of a RAFT (Resilience Adaptation Feasibility Tool) community workshop on Building Resiliency into Comprehensive Planning hosted on April 23, 2021
The Charitable Continuum
Get PDFThere are powerful fairness and efficiency arguments for making charitable donations to soup kitchens 100% deductible. These arguments have no purchase for donations to fund opulent church organs, yet these too are 100% deductible under the current tax code. This stark dichotomy is only the tip of the iceberg. Looking at a wider sampling of charitable gifts reveals a charitable continuum. Based on sliding scales for efficiency, multiple theories of fairness, pluralism, institutional competence and social welfare dictate that charitable deductions should in most cases be fractions between zero and one. Moreover, the Central Limit Theorem strongly suggests that combining this welter of largely independent criteria with the wide variety of charitable gifts results in a classic bell-shaped normal curve of optimal deductions, with a peak at some central value and quickly decaying to zero at the extremes of 0% and 100%. Given that those are the only two options under the current tax code, the current charitable deduction regime inevitably makes large errors in most cases. Actually calculating a precise optimal percentage for each type of charitable donation is of course impractical. This Article suggests, however, that we can do much better than the systematically erroneous current charitable deduction. Granting a 100% deduction only for donations to the desperately poor, along with 50%, 25%, and 0% for gifts yielding progressively fewer efficiency, fairness, pluralism, and institutional competence benefits, promises to deliver a socially more desirable charitable deduction
USAID Strengthen Civil Society to Improve Development Outcomes in Kampala, Uganda
No full textThis summer, I will work to strengthen Uganda’s civil society organizations, thereby improving development efforts. I will contribute to the program’s four thematic areas: health, education, agriculture and democracy
