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，不良演员煽动恐怖主义，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。除了通过社交媒体对个人造成的伤害之外，对民主本身以及对相互理解的规范和不断受到攻击的公民话语的伤害也是如此。政府和企业在很大程度上一致认为，社交媒体上的有害内容需要打击。但在应该打击哪些有害内容、如何打击以及由谁打击的问题上，他们意见不一。近几个月来，Facebook和Twitter在如何处理微目标政治广告，以及对美国总统发布的有害内容的适当回应等问题上公开存在分歧。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”，到英国通信办公室拟议的一套权力。然而，这些建议在一系列方面存在差异，对于正确的方法是什么，几乎没有达成共识。这个项目将为这一令人担忧的争议提供必要的哲学指导。通过领导一个整合了哲学、法律、计算机科学、行为社会科学和教育专业知识的多学科研究团队，该项目试图回答以下研究问题：1.在一个公民个人的言论可以像病毒一样传播并影响数百万人的世界里，言论自由的限制是什么？具体地说，哪些类别的有害言论不在言论自由的保护范围之内，以至于在法律上限制它们是可以接受的？该项目捍卫了这样一种理论，即我们的发言权受到我们不伤害他人的道德责任的限制，并用这一理论解释了为什么社交媒体上相当大一部分有害言论没有受到言论自由权利的保护。这一分析将涵盖社交媒体网络上普遍存在的各种有害言论，包括仇恨言论、恐怖主义煽动、虚假信息和错误信息、网络骚扰、鼓吹自我伤害、微目标竞选活动、外国宣传以及分裂的不文明政治言论。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。为了避免串通，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，以做到这一点。3.社交媒体公司的义务应该如何通过法律来执行？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)在道德上是可以辩护的，以及对法律的哪些修改可以改善这些法规。4.鉴于并非所有有害言论都能或应该被社交媒体公司压制，公民在道德上有哪些义务来反驳网上的有害内容？政策制定者有什么责任支持这种“反言论”，尤其是通过公民教育的创新？该项目将产生传统学术成果和创新公共资源的结合，包括一个信息项目网站、一个教育播客、一份重要的政策报告，以及一项关于中学生如何从事反言论的公民教育试点课程。通过提供管理民主交流的中央基础设施的道德框架，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，同时保护其权力，用于道德上有价值的目的。

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.