Social Media Companies Should Give Researchers Access to More Data. Other Industries Can Show Them How
To understand and improve the effects social media has on the world at large, academics, journalists, and civil society groups need access to data from social media companies. As previous CDT work has shown, however, researchers today lack access to a variety of data that could be used for public interest research.
Social media companies often hesitate to share data with researchers because it could cast them in an unflattering light, or reveal sensitive information about their users or the inner workings of their products. Other sectors, however, more successfully balance the benefits of novel research against privacy and other harms, and social media can learn from them. In CDT’s latest paper, Learning to Share: Lessons on Data-Sharing from Beyond Social Media, we draw lessons from three sectors on management of researcher access to data: clinical trials, electricity smart meters, and environmental impact statements.
These sectors are not perfect analogues for social media, nor have they struck a perfect data access balance, but they have had years more to develop strong regulations and institutions that can act as guidance. The FDA and NIH require pharmaceutical and medical device companies doing clinical trials to publish certain summary data, but only allow more sensitive individual data to be shared through voluntary means. Medical researchers use both kinds of data to ensure the safety and efficacy of medical products. Utilities, at least in some states, tailor access to smart meter data according to the different needs and risks raised by academics, governments, and individuals. Environmental impact statements are public but disorganized, and third-party institutions have been key to organizing them in a way that makes them usable by advocacy groups, academia, and civil society.
While earlier CDT research looked at researchers’ experiences using social media data, and surveyed proposed and passed legislation on the topic, this paper zooms out and offers ten high-level lessons from the successes and failures of other sectors’ approaches. Those lessons are:
Sharing data with researchers can drive more informed policy decisions.
Sharing data can let researchers double check otherwise unverifiable corporate claims.
Baseline information can be shared with researchers without compromising privacy.
Addressing the “black box” problem of how data gets generated will make for more robust, actionable research.
Transparency mechanisms let civil society serve as watchdogs for making sure companies are sufficiently sharing data.
Standards make shared data usable.
Data sharing should be flexible to accommodate public crises.
Ease of understanding is a factor that should be considered in the design of privacy practices.
Data can be tailored to different use cases.
Having a diverse set of actors controlling access to data creates new affordances.
To learn more about how other sectors manage researcher access to data and what lessons social media can draw from that, read the full paper here.
Coalition Urges Senate Not to Let Companies Waive Financial Regulations for AI
CDT joined AI Now Institute, American Civil Liberties Union, and several organizations dedicated to tech policy, consumer protection, and civil rights in a letter to Senate leadership and the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee opposing the “AI Innovation Labs” language in Sec. 10509 of the CLARITY Act.
Not All Guardrails Are Created Equal: Comparing Content Safety and Copyright Filtering
As courts and policymakers work through questions about chatbot liability, they should be wary of analogies that flatten meaningful technical differences. Copyright filtering and safety intervention share real challenges around ambiguity and evasion, but they diverge in what each control must assess, how each manifests over the course of a conversation, and how much can be verified from the outside.
Op-Ed: France’s Constitutional Council Ruling Tests the Limits of Social Media Bans
Read our analysis the legal and policy significance of the Constitutional Council’s decision on ongoing social media age restriction and age assurance debates ahead of the most-anticipated EU-wide approach on child online safety due by December 2026.
The brief explains that Section 230’s liability protections are essential to enable free expression online and they extend to the use of automated systems to engage to rank and order content as part of traditional publishing activities.