Private Regulation and Public Policy: Toward Effective Restriction of Internet Hate Propaganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internet hate propaganda revives debate regarding competing visions of freedom of expression and democracy -- pitting the unregulated marketplace of ideas vaunted in US First Amendment jurisprudence on racist speech against approaches such as Canada's, which envision a role for the state in limiting de-liberating exercises of private power unchecked by the marketplace itself. Despite the relative ease with which Internet hate propagandists may shift the location of their message to First Amendment-protected servers in the US, national and international public regulation of hate propaganda have not outlived their usefulness. Existing private restriction of hate propaganda may assist in resisting First Amendment hegemony, but is not an adequate substitute for protecting fundamental national and international commitments to equality and diversity. The practical drawbacks of many private enforcement mechanisms are compounded by policy concerns underlain by a record of the private market's inadequacy in ameliorating the conditions of historically disadvantaged groups. Certain of these drawbacks might be alleviated through continuing expressions of policy pursuant to public regulation aimed at guiding private regulation and imbuing it with a degree of transparency and accountability. In the long term, creation and monitoring of an Internet Service Provider (ISP) model code of conduct by a respected international body, such as the United Nations, might assist in more systematically harnessing private action in service of public human rights objectives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".