Governing Democratic Discourse: Social Media, Online Harms, and the Future of Free Speech

社交媒体网络已经被武器化。通过这些平台，坏人煽动恐怖主义，煽动种族仇恨，兜售关于如何治愈新冠肺炎的致命虚假信息，并说服青少年自杀。除了社交媒体对个人造成的伤害之外，民主本身也受到伤害，相互理解和公民话语的规范不断受到攻击。政府和企业基本上同意，需要打击社交媒体上的有害内容。但他们在应该打击哪些有害内容、如何打击以及由谁打击等问题上存在强烈分歧。近几个月来，Facebook和Twitter在如何处理微定向政治广告以及对美国总统发布的有害内容的适当回应方面公开存在分歧。政策制定者正在竞相制定各种各样的法规-从欧盟的数字服务法案到英国Ofcom的拟议权力。然而，这些建议在一系列方面存在差异，并且在正确的方法上几乎没有共识。这个项目将为这场充满争议的争论提供重要的哲学指导。通过领导一个多学科研究团队，整合哲学，法律，计算机科学，行为社会科学和教育方面的专业知识，该项目旨在回答以下研究问题：1。在一个公民个人的言论可以“像病毒一样传播”并达到数百万人的世界里，言论自由的极限是什么？具体而言，哪些类别的有害言论不受言论自由的保护，因此在法律上限制它们是可以接受的？该项目捍卫了我们的言论权受到我们不伤害他人的道德责任限制的理论，并使用该理论来解释为什么社交媒体上的有害言论中有很大一部分不受言论自由权的保护。该分析将涵盖社交媒体网络上广泛存在的各种有害言论，包括仇恨言论，煽动恐怖主义，虚假信息和错误信息，网络骚扰，倡导自我伤害，微目标竞选，外国宣传和分裂不文明的政治言论。社交媒体公司在打击其平台上的有害言论方面有哪些道德义务？该项目捍卫了这样一种观点，即如果社交媒体公司不采取任何措施来打击在其平台上发布的有害言论，他们就会成为这种伤害的同谋。为了避免共谋，社交媒体公司必须对有害内容采取行动。该项目将阐明公司应该制定的政策。3.如何通过法律强制执行社交媒体公司的义务？该项目将审查一系列司法管辖区的现有法规，以评估哪些法规（如果有的话）在道德上是站得住脚的，以及对法律进行哪些修改将改善这些法规。4.既然不是所有有害言论都可以或应该被社交媒体公司压制，那么公民在反对网上有害内容方面的道德义务是什么？政策制定者有什么责任来支持这种“反言论”，特别是通过公民教育的创新？该项目将结合传统的学术成果和创新的公共资源，包括一个信息项目网站、一个教育播客、一份主要政策报告和一个针对中学生的关于如何发表反言论的公民教育试点课程。通过提供一个道德框架来管理民主沟通的核心基础设施，该项目旨在为公民、公司和政策制定者提供打击社交媒体上有害言论所需的指导，同时保留其用于道德价值目的的力量。

Social-media networks have been weaponised. Through these platforms, bad actors have incited terrorism, stoked racial hatred, peddled deadly disinformation on how to cure Covid-19, and persuaded teenagers to commit suicide. Beyond the harms to individuals caused through social media are the harms to democracy itself, and to the norms of mutual understanding and civil discourse that are continually under assault. Governments and businesses largely agree that harmful content on social media needs to be combatted. But they disagree intensely on what harmful content should be combatted, how, and by whom. In recent months, Facebook and Twitter have publicly disagreed on how to deal with micro-targeted political advertising, as well as the proper response to harmful content posted by the US President. Policymakers are racing to enact a wide variety of regulations -- from the Digital Services Act in the EU, to a proposed set of powers for Ofcom in the UK. Yet these proposals differ in a range of ways, and there is little consensus on what the right approach is.This project will provide essential philosophical guidance on this fraught controversy. By leading a multidisciplinary research team integrating expertise in philosophy, law, computer science, behavioural social science, and education, the project seeks to answer the following research questions:1. What are the limits of free speech in a world where individual citizens' words can "go viral" and reach millions? Specifically, what categories of harmful speech fall outside the protection of free speech, such that legally restricting them could be acceptable? This project defends the theory that our right to speak is limited by our moral responsibilities not to harm others, and it uses this theory to explain why a significant proportion of harmful speech on social media is not protected by the right to free speech. This analysis will encompass a wide variety of harmful speech that is pervasive on social media networks, including hate speech, terrorist incitement, disinformation and misinformation, cyber-harassment, advocacy of self-harm, microtargeted electioneering, foreign propaganda, and divisively uncivil political speech.2. What are the moral obligations of social media companies to combat harmful speech on their platforms? This project defends the idea that if social media companies do nothing to combat harmful speech posted on their platforms, they become complicit in that harm. In order to avoid complicity, social media companies must take action against harmful content. The project will spell out the policies that companies ought to enact to do so. 3. How should social media-companies' obligations be enforced through law? The project will examine existing regulations across a range of jurisdictions to assess which, if any, is morally defensible, and what changes to the law would improve them. 4. Since not all harmful speech can or should be suppressed by social-media firms, what are the moral obligations of citizens to argue back against harmful content online? And what are the duties of policymakers to support this "counter-speech", especially through innovations in civic education? This project will produce a combination of traditional academic outputs and innovative public resources, including an informational project website, an educational podcast, a major policy report, and a pilot civic education curriculum for secondary school students on how to engage in counter-speech. By offering a moral framework to govern a central infrastructure of democratic communication, this project aims to generate the guidance that citizens, companies, and policymakers need to combat harmful speech on social media, while preserving its power to be used for morally valuable ends.