Daphne Keller

@daphnehk

Intermediary Liability Director at . Usually knows what she's talking about. Former Google AGC.

Vrijeme pridruživanja: listopad 2009.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @daphnehk

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @daphnehk

  1. Prikvačeni tweet
    13. ruj 2018.

    We imagine that platforms can bring the whole sprawling chaos of human behavior into compliance with the law. Make our lives policeable, and policed, to a degree no govt in history could have imagined. Not only do we seem to think it's possible– we think it's a good idea.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    Daphne Keller, Director of Intermediary Liability at Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society and a former Associate General Counsel for Google, speaks to about how trends in India’s technology legislation fit into a global picture

    Poništi
  3. 1. velj

    To my mind the blank check delegation to the AG is the whole upshot of EARN IT. The rest is just noise — processes and standards that mostly won’t matter at the end of the day. ’s TechDirt post does a great job walking through this.

    Poništi
  4. 1. velj

    This is such a great set of questions. How many of us can claim expertise this deep under our own national laws?

    Poništi
  5. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    31. sij

    Can someone who's an admin law expert please analyze the EARN IT Act? Because wtf is this "a commission suggests best practices, but the AG can decide the final rules himself" stuff, is that A Thing, honest Q, I don't know admin law, my brain's just like "Is this [the APA]? 🦋"

    Poništi
  6. 30. sij

    From “if you believe this bill is about finally holding Big Tech accountable after it got too big for its britches under a permissive Section 230 regime, you are being had.”

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. 30. sij

    Great summary of the Graham bill. It hitches anti-encryption goals to anti-CDA 230 ones. And it lets the AG (yes, that AG) effectively mandate surveillance and censorship that, if established by normal lawmaking processes, would be unconstitutional.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. 29. sij

    If a candidate mentions the GDPR, does that improve her evaluation--or just get her sent home immediately?

    Poništi
  9. 29. sij

    Great opportunity to work with the real-est information that anyone in public has about platform content takedowns, along with the team at Harvard.

    Poništi
  10. 29. sij

    One question to : You mention amicus briefs. How do potential amici find out what’s on the docket?

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  11. 29. sij

    This bit intrigued me, because it implies FB is tracking takedown decisions with tags/metadata that allow them to pull “similar” examples, by some definition of similar. Very curious about the details of that, and what transparency possibilities it could make possible.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. 29. sij

    Of course that relates to this truth about the Board members: people will be mad at them. And joining the Board is a reputational risk right out of the gate, with members tying their own credibility to that of FB and other Board members. I hope good people get past that and join.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  13. 29. sij

    I’m glad to see this “hot potato” provision: Facebook can send big deal, urgent questions to the Board for rapid adjudication. I think that’ll be a lot of the Board’s value to FB - but also to the rest of us.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  14. 29. sij

    We are so lucky to have and closely tracking the details of the FB Oversight Board as they emerge.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    29. sij

    Recent CJEU/ rulings—Google vs. CNIL and Glawischnig-Piesczek vs. Facebook—fail to sufficiently consider and risks from domestic authorities in EU countries asserting global authority and jurisdiction over online content: .

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    29. sij

    My wife and I never baby talk to our kid. We use full sentences and lessons about intermediary liability law. My daughter is 5 and knows how to properly use the terms “publisher” and “platform.”

    Poništi
  17. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    29. sij

    i've recently become obsessed with all the insane corporate ways we say normal things to each other. "I’m a little confused" is by far my favorite - it's absolute rage masked as a professional pleasantry. what are some of your best/most insufferable work gibberish phrases?

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. 29. sij

    Experts in surveillance or privacy law and experts in platform content liability law are too often siloed. We don’t coordinate well when those two areas overlap. (See, e.g., the total neglect of data protection issues in Glawischnig-Pieszcek.)

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. 29. sij

    Is anyone writing about how cases like this one—where the AG says national laws requiring “general and indiscriminate retention” of user data violate EU law—relate to analogous laws requiring general *monitoring* of users’ communications?

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    28. sij

    Useful Chart presented now by with his research on how ‘fairness’ is represented in 15 official language versions of the . ‘Equitable’, ‘correct’, ‘loyal’ are some of the versions. See paper here:

    Poništi
  21. 28. sij

    Would it be better to organize the course by platform (copy shop, telegraph operator, radio, classified ads, owner of graffitied wall, etc.) or by claim (defamation, copyright, communist literature [RLY], material support of terrorism, obscenity, regular porn, etc.)?

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·