糟糕的言论,好的证据:开源调查背景下的内容调节

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW
Hillary Hubley
{"title":"糟糕的言论,好的证据:开源调查背景下的内容调节","authors":"Hillary Hubley","doi":"10.1163/15718123-bja10124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis article explores how content moderation on social media platforms impacts the work of open-source investigators through its routine removal of content having evidentiary value. These practices have rendered social media platforms susceptible to public criticism and scrutiny. However, these criticisms have largely been levied by a community who cares about content removal’s impact on free expression online. This swath of concerns does not comport with those of international criminal investigators who have increasingly turned to platforms for evidence gathering. Rather than confronting the issue, investigators have absorbed the costs by downplaying the impact of content removal on their work and by seeking to preserve the content on their own. I examine the disconnect between these two groups in their respective approaches to the problem of content removal and argue that both communities can stand to benefit from joining forces and taking notice of the convergence of their respective concerns.","PeriodicalId":55966,"journal":{"name":"International Criminal Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bad Speech, Good Evidence: Content Moderation in the Context of Open-Source Investigations\",\"authors\":\"Hillary Hubley\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718123-bja10124\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThis article explores how content moderation on social media platforms impacts the work of open-source investigators through its routine removal of content having evidentiary value. These practices have rendered social media platforms susceptible to public criticism and scrutiny. However, these criticisms have largely been levied by a community who cares about content removal’s impact on free expression online. This swath of concerns does not comport with those of international criminal investigators who have increasingly turned to platforms for evidence gathering. Rather than confronting the issue, investigators have absorbed the costs by downplaying the impact of content removal on their work and by seeking to preserve the content on their own. I examine the disconnect between these two groups in their respective approaches to the problem of content removal and argue that both communities can stand to benefit from joining forces and taking notice of the convergence of their respective concerns.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Criminal Law Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Criminal Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-bja10124\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Criminal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-bja10124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了社交媒体平台上的内容审核如何通过常规删除具有证据价值的内容来影响开源调查人员的工作。这些做法使得社交媒体平台容易受到公众的批评和审查。然而,这些批评主要是由一个关心内容删除对网络言论自由影响的社区提出的。这一系列担忧与国际刑事调查人员的担忧不符,他们越来越多地转向证据收集平台。调查人员没有直面这个问题,而是通过淡化内容删除对他们工作的影响,并寻求自己保存内容来承担成本。我研究了这两个群体在处理内容删除问题时的脱节,并认为两个社区都可以从联合起来并注意到他们各自关注的问题的一致性中受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bad Speech, Good Evidence: Content Moderation in the Context of Open-Source Investigations
This article explores how content moderation on social media platforms impacts the work of open-source investigators through its routine removal of content having evidentiary value. These practices have rendered social media platforms susceptible to public criticism and scrutiny. However, these criticisms have largely been levied by a community who cares about content removal’s impact on free expression online. This swath of concerns does not comport with those of international criminal investigators who have increasingly turned to platforms for evidence gathering. Rather than confronting the issue, investigators have absorbed the costs by downplaying the impact of content removal on their work and by seeking to preserve the content on their own. I examine the disconnect between these two groups in their respective approaches to the problem of content removal and argue that both communities can stand to benefit from joining forces and taking notice of the convergence of their respective concerns.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Thus there is also a need for criminological, sociological and historical research on the issues of ICL. The Review publishes in-depth analytical research that deals with these issues. The analysis may cover: • the substantive and procedural law on the international level; • important cases from national jurisdictions which have a bearing on general issues; • criminological and sociological; and, • historical research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信