Element 68Element 45Element 44Element 63Element 64Element 43Element 41Element 46Element 47Element 69Element 76Element 62Element 61Element 81Element 82Element 50Element 52Element 79Element 79Element 7Element 8Element 73Element 74Element 17Element 16Element 75Element 13Element 12Element 14Element 15Element 31Element 32Element 59Element 58Element 71Element 70Element 88Element 88Element 56Element 57Element 54Element 55Element 18Element 20Element 23Element 65Element 21Element 22iconsiconsElement 83iconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsElement 84iconsiconsElement 36Element 35Element 1Element 27Element 28Element 30Element 29Element 24Element 25Element 2Element 1Element 66
BredowCast #38 - Facebooks "Supreme Court"

BredowCast #38 - Facebooks "Supreme Court"

Mark Zuckerberg announced that an independent body resembling a sort of "Supreme Court" could function as a complaint office for users in controversial content issues in the future. In episode 38 of the BredowCast, the lawyer Amélie Heldt explains the legal issues raised by this project.

As a lawyer and PhD student at the Hans-Bredow-Institut, Amélie Heldt deals with freedom of expression in social networks. So far, freedom of expression has been regulated by the rules of the respective network. On Facebook, these are the community standards that you agree to upon joining the platform. If you violate them by posting content that glorifies violence or is pornographic, Facebook has the right to delete this content from the platform.

Mark Zuckerberg’s new proposal that an independent body should monitor the removal of content raises some questions. Who should be the judges of the future Facebook “Supreme Court”? Who appoints them? How can this court interpret rules for the whole world? Amélie Heldt discusses these questions with Johanna Sebauer.

Show Notes

Further Reading




Subscribe to our newsletter and receive the Institute's latest news via email.