Free Speech in the Algorithmic Society: Big Data, Private Governance, and New School Speech Regulation
Free Speech in the Algorithmic Society: Big Data, Private Governance, and New School Speech Regulation
复制标题
算法社会的言论自由：大数据、私人治理与新派言论监管
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Balkin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Balkin
我们现在已经从互联网的早期进入了网络社会。该社区的特点是使用算法，人工智能代理和大数据来管理人口。它还包括数字基础设施公司，大型跨国社交媒体平台和搜索引擎，这些搜索引擎位于传统民族国家和普通个人之间，并充当特殊用途的言论管理者。
106.反种族主义协会对表达自由提出了两个核心问题。首先，大数据允许新形式的操纵和控制，私营公司将试图通过援引言论自由原则来合法化并使其免受监管。在这里，第一修正案的论点可能会被用来阻止数字隐私保障和防止消费者保护法规。其次，私有的数字基础设施公司和在线平台对言论的管理，就像民族国家曾经做过的那样。在这里，第一修正案，正如通常解释的那样，根本不足以保护说话的实际能力。本文的第一部分描述了如何规范使用大数据和算法决策的在线业务，这些业务符合言论自由原则。其中一些企业是其最终用户的“信息受托人”;他们必须履行诚信和不操纵的义务。其他不是信息受托人的企业有责任不参与“算法滋扰”：他们可能不会将其分析和使用大数据的成本外部化到无辜的第三方身上。
文章的第二部分转向新兴的多元化网络言论监管模式。这种多元主义模式与民族国家管制其公民言论的传统二元模式形成鲜明对比。
在多元模式中，领土政府继续直接管制言论。但他们也试图强迫或拉拢数字基础设施的所有者来规范他人的言论。这是“新学校”的言论规定。数字基础设施所有者，尤其是社交媒体公司，现在充当着言论社区的私人管理者，为他们所管理的社区制定和执行各种规则和规范。最后，终端用户、民间社会组织、黑客和其他私人行为者一再向数字基础设施公司施加压力，要求它们以某些方式监管言论，而不是以其他方式监管言论。这种三角形的拉锯战--而不是传统的国家管制私人团体言论的二元模式--是算法社会中说话的实际能力的特征。
本文以被遗忘权和假新闻问题为例，说明新兴的多元主义模式和新的学校言论管制正在发挥作用。
随着私人治理成为言论自由的核心，最终用户和民族国家都对私人治理施加压力。民族国家试图让私营公司成为官僚机构，以执行仇恨言论监管和被遗忘权等新理论。相反，最终用户越来越多地要求私营在线公司提供程序保障、正当程序、透明度和平等保护。
终端用户越是将企业视为管理者或特殊目的的主权国家，终端用户就越会期望并要求这些公司遵守管理者对所管理对象的基本义务。这些义务包括处理投诉和实施制裁的程序公正性、通知、透明度、合理解释、一致性和遵守法治价值观-这里的“法律”是公司公开宣布的规范和政策。反过来，数字基础设施公司将发现，他们必须承担新的社会义务，以满足国家和最终用户日益增长的威胁和期望。
We have now moved from the early days of the Internet to the Algorithmic Society. The Algorithmic Society features the use of algorithms, artificial intelligence agents, and Big Data to govern populations. It also features digital infrastructure companies, large multi-national social media platforms, and search engines that sit between traditional nation states and ordinary individuals, and serve as special-purpose governors of speech.
The Algorithmic Society presents two central problems for freedom of expression. First, Big Data allows new forms of manipulation and control, which private companies will attempt to legitimate and insulate from regulation by invoking free speech principles. Here First Amendment arguments will likely be employed to forestall digital privacy guarantees and prevent consumer protection regulation. Second, privately owned digital infrastructure companies and online platforms govern speech much as nation states once did. Here the First Amendment, as normally construed, is simply inadequate to protect the practical ability to speak. The first part of the essay describes how to regulate online businesses that employ Big Data and algorithmic decision making consistent with free speech principles. Some of these businesses are "information fiduciaries" toward their end-users; they must exercise duties of good faith and non-manipulation. Other businesses who are not information fiduciaries have a duty not to engage in "algorithmic nuisance": they may not externalize the costs of their analysis and use of Big Data onto innocent third parties.
The second part of the essay turns to the emerging pluralist model of online speech regulation. This pluralist model contrasts with the traditional dyadic model in which nation states regulated the speech of their citizens.
In the pluralist model, territorial governments continue to regulate speech directly. But they also attempt to coerce or co-opt owners of digital infrastructure to regulate the speech of others. This is "new school" speech regulation. Digital infrastructure owners, and especially social media companies, now act as private governors of speech communities, creating and enforcing various rules and norms of the communities they govern. Finally, end users, civil society organizations, hackers, and other private actors repeatedly put pressure on digital infrastructure companies to regulate speech in certain ways and not to regulate it in others. This triangular tug of war -- rather than the traditional dyadic model of states regulating the speech of private parties -- characterizes the practical ability to speak in the algorithmic society.
The essay uses the examples of the right to be forgotten and the problem of fake news to illustrate the emerging pluralist model -- and new school speech regulation -- in action.
As private governance becomes central to freedom of speech, both end-users and nation states put pressure on private governance. Nation states attempt to co-opt private companies into becoming bureaucracies for the enforcement of hate speech regulation and new doctrines like the right to be forgotten. Conversely, end users increasingly demand procedural guarantees, due process, transparency, and equal protection from private online companies.
The more that end-users view businesses as governors, or as special-purpose sovereigns, the more end-users will expect -- and demand -- that these companies should conform to the basic obligations of governors towards those they govern. These obligations include procedural fairness in handling complaints and applying sanctions, notice, transparency, reasoned explanations, consistency, and conformity to rule of law values -- the "law" in this case being the publicly stated norms and policies of the company. Digital infrastructure companies, in turn, will find that they must take on new social obligations to meet these growing threats and expectations from nation states and end-users alike.