SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
June, 12 2019, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
Social Media Platforms Increase Transparency About Content Removal Requests, But Many Keep Users in the Dark When Their Speech Is Censored, EFF Report Shows
Who Has Your Back Spotlights Good, and Not So Good, Content Moderation Policies
WASHINGTON
San Francisco and Tunis, Tunisia--While social media platforms are increasingly giving users the opportunity to appeal decisions to censor their posts, very few platforms comprehensively commit to notifying users that their content has been removed in the first place, raising questions about their accountability and transparency, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said today in a new report.
How users are supposed to challenge content removals that they've never been told about is among the key issues illuminated by EFF in the second installment of its Who Has Your Back: Censorship Edition report. The paper comes amid a wave of new government regulations and actions around the world meant to rid platforms of extremist content. But in response to calls to remove objectionable content, social media companies and platforms have all too often censored valuable speech.
EFF examined the content moderation policies of 16 platforms and app stores, including Facebook, Twitter, the Apple App Store, and Instagram. Only four companies--Facebook, Reddit, Apple, and GitHub--commit to notifying users when any content is censored and specifying the legal request or community guideline violation that led to the removal. While Twitter notifies users when tweets are removed, it carves out an exception for tweets related to "terrorism," a class of content that is difficult to accurately identify and can include counter-speech or documentation of war crimes. Notably, Facebook and GitHub were found to have more comprehensive notice policies than their peers.
"Providing an appeals process is great for users, but its utility is undermined by the fact that users can't count on companies to tell them when or why their content is taken down," said Gennie Gebhart, EFF associate director of research, who co-authored the report. "Notifying people when their content has been removed or censored is a challenge when your users number in the millions or billions, but social media platforms should be making investments to provide meaningful notice."
In the report, EFF awarded stars in six categories, including transparency reporting of government takedown requests, providing meaningful notice to users when content or accounts are removed, allowing users to appeal removal decisions, and public support of the Santa Clara Principles, a set of guidelines for speech moderation based on a human rights framework. The report was released today at the RightsCon summit on human rights in the digital age, held in Tunis, Tunisia.
Reddit leads the pack with six stars, followed by Apple's App Store and GitHub with five stars, and Medium, Google Play, and YouTube with four stars. Facebook, Reddit, Pinterest and Snap each improved their scores over the past year since our inaugural censorship edition of Who Has Your Back in 2018. Nine companies meet our criteria for transparency reporting of takedown requests from governments, and 11 have appeals policies, but only one--Reddit--discloses the number of appeals it receives. Reddit also takes the extra step of disclosing the percentage of appeals resolved in favor of or against the appeal.
Importantly, 12 companies are publicly supporting the Santa Clara Principles, which outline a set of minimum content moderation policy standards in three areas: transparency, notice, and appeals.
"Our goal in publishing Who Has Your Back is to inform users about how transparent social media companies are about content removal and encourage improved content moderation practices across the industry," said EFF Director of International Free Expression Jillian York. "People around the world rely heavily on social media platforms to communicate and share ideas, including activists, dissidents, journalists, and struggling communities. So it's important for tech companies to disclose the extent to which governments censor speech, and which governments are doing it."
For the report:
https://www.eff.org/wp/who-has-your-back-2019
For more on platform censorship:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/05/
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world.
(415) 436-9333LATEST NEWS
'A Pathetic Power Grab': Trump Purges Bipartisan Election Assistance Commission
"This move undermines the integrity of nonpartisan election administration," said Arizona's secretary of state.
Jul 10, 2026
US President Donald Trump late Thursday forced out the remaining three members of an independent, bipartisan commission that assists state election officials across the country, a move that critics condemned as a "pathetic power grab" ahead of the 2026 midterms.
The two Democratic members of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), Benjamin Hovland and Thomas Hicks, were fired, and Republican Commissioner Christy McCormick resigned at the White House's request, according to ProPublica. The agency, established by Congress more than two decades ago, now lacks leadership and any ability to make decisions, just months before the 2026 elections.
The EAC, as its website states, is "an independent, bipartisan commission whose mission is to help election officials improve the administration of elections and help Americans participate in the voting process." In an executive order last year, Trump ordered the EAC to implement proof-of-citizenship requirements in the federal voter registration process, along with other changes. The president's effort to impose his policy demands on the EAC was mostly blocked in federal court.
Trump, who has said he wants his administration to "take over" voting nationwide ahead of the 2026 midterms, has since taken other steps that watchdogs and Democratic lawmakers say amount to an attempt to preemptively subvert the coming elections, including a sweeping assault on mail-in voting—which is also facing legal challenges. Legislatively, Trump is pushing Republicans to pass the SAVE America Act, a bill that experts say would prevent millions of Americans from voting.
Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice, said Thursday's EAC firings "are deeply concerning in light of President Trump’s relentless efforts to try to interfere in elections."
"These removals leave the agency without leadership and unable to carry out its major responsibilities," said Waldman. "The guardrails Congress placed on this agency are clear and must be followed: The Election Assistance Commission was designed to be bipartisan with four members, no more than two of which can be from the same political party. The agency cannot make any significant decisions or take any significant actions unless three confirmed commissioners agree. Until bipartisan replacements are confirmed, the agency cannot lawfully make any decisions that affect how Americans vote."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, said Trump's termination of EAC commissioners underscores that "he’s scared of the voting power of the American people."
"This move is another pathetic attempt to sow doubt in our elections, which are safely and expertly run by states and localities," said Gilbert. "This agency deserves a steady hand and expert leadership. That said, it is important for voters to know that states and localities, not the EAC, run our elections. Even more importantly, it is the voters who decide who takes office."
The EAC firings came less than two weeks after the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court handed Trump the power to purge independent agencies at will with its Trump v. Slaughter ruling, erasing around 90 years of precedent.
Election law expert Rick Hasen warned in a blog post on Thursday that Trump "could try to direct the commissioner-less EAC to do his bidding, for example by stating that the EAC must amend the federal voter registration form that states must accept for federal elections to include documentary proof of citizenship."
"Trump’s first voting-related EO tried to do this, and he was stymied. But that was acting through the commissioners and before the Slaughter case," Hasen noted. "If he tries anything like this, it will be high-profile and very important litigation that will end up at the Supreme Court on the emergency docket over the summer."
Adrian Fontes, Arizona’s Democratic secretary of state, said in a statement late Thursday that the EAC purge was "irresponsible and dangerous," accusing the administration of remaining "dead set on causing chaos for our election officials across this country."
"This move undermines the integrity of nonpartisan election administration," Fontes added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Abolish ICE,' Says Mamdani After Agent Kills Houston Man Lorenzo Salgado Araujo
Salgado "called Houston home for 35 years," said New York's democratic socialist mayor. "On Tuesday, an ICE agent shot and killed him."
Jul 09, 2026
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Thursday renewed his call to "abolish ICE" after a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent fatally shot a man in Texas earlier this week.
"Lorenzo Salgado Araujo called Houston home for 35 years. On Tuesday, an ICE agent shot and killed him," Mamdani said on social media. "His family learned of his death from a video before anyone bothered to knock on their door."
"New York City stands with the Salgado family in demanding a full, independent investigation and real accountability," the mayor added. "To the Salgado family and any immigrant family in this city living in fear: We grieve with you, and we will continue to stand beside you in the pursuit of justice."
More than 1,000 people gathered in Houston's East End on Wednesday evening to denounce ICE and remember Salgado, a 52-year-old married father of three originally from Mexico who, according to relatives, was in the process of legalizing his status in the United States.
Salgado's son, school teacher Ronaldo Salgado, said that his father had "dedicated his life to giving his family the American dream."
Salgado was driving in the Magnolia Park neighborhood to pick up his construction crew on Tuesday morning when an unidentified ICE agent fatally shot him during an enforcement operation. ICE claimed that Salgado tried to evade arrest and threatened agents with his vehicle, but his family, civil rights advocates, and community leaders strongly dispute that account, pointing to surveillance footage and eyewitness accounts that they argue undermine the agency's narrative.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told The New York Times late on Thursday that neither Salgado nor any of his three passengers were the targets of ICE enforcement, but that they drew agents' attention because one of them resembled a wanted man from Guatemala.
Democratic lawmakers and civil rights groups have joined Salgado's relatives in demanding an independent investigation of his killing.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum announced Thursday that her government plans to file criminal complaints in the United States in connection with 14 Mexican nationals who died in ICE custody. Sheinbaum added that Salgado's killing "is not only sad and regrettable, but also appears to have been targeted."
On-duty officers from ICE and other Department of Homeland Security agencies have fatally shot at least four other people during President Donald Trump's deadly second-term crackdown on undocumented immigrants: Silverio Villegas González of Mexico and US citizens Ruben Ray Martinez, Renee Good, and Alex Pretti.
At least dozens of people have also died in ICE custody or shortly after being released during Trump's second term. Last month, ICE announced that it was rescinding a 2021 Biden administration policy requiring congressional notification and an investigation whenever a detainee died within 30 days of their release.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Absolutely Unprecedented': Trump Lackeys Crushing Efforts to Rein in Price-Hiking Corporate Mergers
“Consumers are getting really screwed by all of this,” said one critic.
Jul 09, 2026
Political appointees installed by President Donald Trump are overruling career attorneys inside the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, intervening to weaken or halt investigations into major corporate mergers in a way never seen before, MS NOW reported Thursday.
Three unnamed sources told the outlet "that DOJ staff have privately complained that the Trump administration is essentially deciding not to enforce antitrust laws that are critical to keeping companies from becoming single-source providers and being able to charge enormous sums for their product or service."
According to MS NOW:
The two mergers that DOJ leaders are ramming through include two low-cost Mexican air carriers, Viva Aerobus and Volaris, who announced their plans to merge last year, and the proposed merger of the Italian firm Saipem and UK firm Subsea7, who together control a sizable portion of sales for equipment used for subsea oil operations. Major oil companies, including ExxonMobil, Petrobras and TotalEnergies, have filed formal objections with federal regulators about the latter merger, arguing to antitrust regulators that the combined firms will create a subsea monopoly that will increase costs, delay critical projects and force clients into expensive, long-term contracts.
Experts say the aforementioned mergers are likely to drive up prices US consumers pay for airfare to Mexico and at the gas pump, yet again giving the lie to Trump's "America First" pledge.
Current and former DOJ officials described Trump's interference as without precedent.
“It’s unilateral surrender on antitrust enforcement; it’s absolutely unprecedented,” Bill Baer, the former assistant attorney general for the antitrust division during the Obama administration. “It’s definitely going to hurt consumers. It means prices will go up, concentration is going to increase—and quality often diminishes when you have only a few firms operating in the same market.”
The DOJ Antitrust Division was originally launched more than a century ago during the tail-end of the Progressive Era to combat monopolies and enforce antitrust legislation like the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Gilded Age-era Sherman Act. It was formally created during the Great Depression following weak enforcement of the Sherman and Clayton acts, as the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration viewed concentrated corporate power as a threat not only to consumers but to democracy itself.
While the postwar decades saw relatively aggressive antitrust enforcement by presidents of both major parties, the Reagan administration adopted a much more permissive merger philosophy that laid the groundwork for decades of consolidation across industries that has continued to this day, despite limited antitrust revivals during the Obama and Biden administrations.
Biden-era Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan and DOJ officials pursued a more aggressive antitrust agenda that Trump has been rolling back in favor of deregulation. Critics have pointed out that Trump has sometimes used antitrust mechanisms selectively, targeting certain media or technology companies for political reasons rather than consistently applying a broad anti-monopoly approach.
According to an article published last month in The Wall Street Journal, Stanley Woodward, the senior DOJ official now overseeing antitrust enforcement, has told department lawyers that he favors resolving cases through settlements rather than taking corporations to trial. Some antitrust attorneys interpreted the remarks as a directive to avoid litigation and seek settlements in ongoing and future cases. Critics say Woodward’s posture could weaken the DOJ's ability to challenge monopolistic mergers in favor of fast-tracked settlements.
"He's taking litigation off the table, and you don’t get a settlement absent a litigation threat,” one person with knowledge of Woodward's actions told MS NOW. “I can’t think of an administration in history that would want to run antitrust policy like this.”
“Consumers are getting really screwed by all of this,” the person continued. “We’re talking 10 years of consumer harm that can’t be undone.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular