Daphne Keller

4 weeks ago | justsecurity.org | Tess Bridgeman |Ryan Goodman |Michael Posner |Daphne Keller |Maya Nir

2025 will be a pivotal year for technology regulation in the United States and around the world. The European Union has begun regulating social media platforms with its Digital Services Act. In the United States, regulatory proposals at the federal level will likely include renewed efforts to repeal or reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Feb 29, 2024 | wsj.com | Daphne Keller |Francis Fukuyama

Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.

Jan 28, 2024 | cyberlaw.stanford.edu | Daphne Keller

Home » Blog » FAQs about the NetChoice Cases at the Supreme Court, Part 1 print By Daphne Keller on January 28, 2024 at 4:48 pm The Supreme Court is about to review a constitutional challenge to two unprecedented and very complicated laws regulating social media. The laws were enacted by Texas and Florida in order to counter “censorship” and alleged anti-conservative bias of major Internet platforms like Facebook or YouTube.

Oct 19, 2023 | brookings.edu | Daphne Keller

Efforts to regulate internet platforms in the U.S. are often stymied by a fundamental disagreement. Some voters and leaders—mostly Democrats—want platforms to remove more content, including “lawful but awful” material like medical misinformation or hate speech. Some—mostly Republicans—want platforms to remove less content. These same competing impulses also appear in litigation. Some plaintiffs sue to prevent platforms from removing content, and others to hold them liable for failing to do so.

May 4, 2023 | lawfareblog.com | Daphne Keller

Disputes about platforms’ responsibilities for online speech almost always involve three competing interests. But in typical litigation, only two parties are represented. As a result, courts don’t hear from absent people or groups who may be seriously affected by a ruling. Put simply, the three parties are people who want to speak, people harmed by speech, and platforms. The missing party is usually one of the first two.