Paper detail

Response by the Montreal AI Ethics Institute to the Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Online Content Moderation

In April 2020, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) publicly called for comments on expanding and improving the Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability (SCP), originally published in May 2018. The Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) responded to this call by drafting a set of recommendations based on insights and analysis by the MAIEI staff and supplemented by workshop contributions from the AI Ethics community convened during two online public consultation workshops. In its submission, MAIEI provides 12 overarching recommendations for the SCP, these include: 1) ensure there is more diversity in the content moderation process; 2) increase transparency into how platforms guide content-ranking; 3) disclose anonymized data on the training and/or cultural background of the content moderators for a platform; 4) tailor content moderation tools for specific issues; 5) draft specific guidelines for messaging applications with regards to data protection in content moderation; 6) take into account cultural differences relevant to what constitutes acceptable behavior online; 7) ensure platforms are transparent in regards to political advertising; 8) ensure greater transparency into the user-generated flagging/reporting systems deployed by a platform; 9) clarify if user content is flagged or reported through an automated system; 10) provide more data on the types of content removed from platforms; 11) provide clear guidelines on the appeal process, as well as data on prior appeals; 12) create a system for periodically revisiting the SCP so it reflects various technological advancements, modifications in law and policy, as well as changing trends or movements in content moderation.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.