This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.
The time when the solution to bad speech could be advanced as simply more speech might seem quaint. The famously libertarian Electronic Frontier Foundation recently released a white paper in which it acknowledged a line between a clash of ideas and flat-out harassment, with the latter causing less rather than more robust debate. Separately, concerns about outright false news that spreads virally have inspired calls for action by intermediaries like Facebook — a self-described technology, rather than media, company.
Applying lessons from the conflicts of the past two decades online, how might we agree upon a vision for social networking even if we disagree on many substantive issues to be debated there, and what are the roles, if any, of regulators and private platforms in establishing boundaries on behavior online through code or legal sanction?
Is it more difficult to agree on a vision is our media is no longer about the battlefield or the real world but is the battlefield and the real world?EDIT PLAYLIST INFORMATION DELETE PLAYLIST
Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (2/2 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/2 playlist item notes are private)
December 31, 2016
Harvard Law School, Berkman Center
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at email@example.com. Thank you.