Who creates online law? Imran does!

 This post is being throttled by facebook so here is a repost of the original at Medium:

Why We Need a Better Alternative to the CCDH

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) was founded with the noble aim of tackling online hate, disinformation, and extremism. But over time, its methods, motives, and transparency have drawn serious concern. Critics from across the political spectrum have questioned the organisation’s opaque funding, ties to partisan politics, and lack of accountability. When any body—however well-intentioned—gains influence without public scrutiny, the result can be dangerous: censorship, bias, and erosion of trust.

What’s needed is not just a watchdog, but a secular, transparent, democratic, and independently audited organisation to monitor online harms. This replacement body should not be built by a political faction or driven by ideology. Instead, it must include diverse voices: ethicists, technologists, free speech advocates, psychologists, minority representatives, and civil society leaders. Its decisions should be reviewable, its data open-source, and its reports peer-reviewed.

Unlike CCDH, which has been criticised for black-box research and selectively naming targets, a new body must offer clarity—clearly stating how it defines “hate,” how it quantifies harm, and how it guards against partisan misuse. Algorithms and social media dynamics are complex. Combatting toxic content without silencing dissent requires both skill and humility.

The replacement should focus on digital education, platform transparency, and structural solutions—not just naming and shaming individuals or calling for bans. It must operate outside government and industry influence but in consultation with both. Above all, it must uphold the principle that truth is strengthened, not silenced, by openness.

Imran Ahmed and the CCDH helped spark a crucial conversation about online harms. But now it's time to evolve. The stakes are too high to leave in the hands of any one unelected group. We need an accountable, impartial institution that defends both digital safety and freedom of expression. The internet deserves no less.

Who or What Should Replace CCDH?

1. Academic Institutions with Interdisciplinary Digital Ethics Programs

Examples include:

– Oxford Internet Institute (UK)

– MIT Media Lab (US)

– Berkman Klein Center at Harvard (US)

– Digital Methods Initiative, University of Amsterdam (Netherlands)

These institutions offer peer-reviewed research and high ethical standards, far from activist capture.

2. Civil Liberties and Digital Rights Organizations (Balanced Input)

Left-leaning: Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Access Now, Article 19

Right-leaning: Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Free Speech Union (UK)

This creates ideological balance and avoids partisanship.

3. Psychologists and Neuroscientists Specializing in Online Behaviour

– Dr. Jonathan Haidt (NYU)

– Dr. Jean Twenge (San Diego State University)

– Dr. Tania Singer (Max Planck Institute)

– Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer (risk perception expert)

These experts offer science-based insight into why people believe and share misinformation.

4. Whistleblower-Backed Transparency Advocates

– Frances Haugen (Facebook whistleblower)

– Dr. Tristan Harris (Center for Humane Technology)

– Dr. Shoshana Zuboff (surveillance capitalism theorist)

They offer insider understanding of tech system failures and advocate for accountability.

5. A Publicly Mandated, Multi-Stakeholder Body

Modelled after institutions like ICANN or W3C. It would include:

– Tech platforms (limited voting rights)

– Academic and legal observers

– Citizen assemblies

– Human rights advocates

This ensures decentralised governance and rotating, transparent leadership.

6. Decentralised, Peer-Reviewed Knowledge Commons

Using tools like:

– Pol.is (for democratic debate)

– Metagov (online governance infrastructure)

– GitHub-style public review of data

This open science model ensures that research is visible, auditable, and collaborative.

7. Ethical Frameworks for Governance

Draw on:

– UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

– OECD’s AI Principles

– The UN’s proposed “Global Digital Compact”

– Rawlsian ethics (veil of ignorance)

These provide a principled, rights-based basis for decision-making.

8. Independent Legal Experts from Varied Traditions

Suggested voices:

– Lord Jonathan Sumption (UK)

– Nadine Strossen (US, former ACLU)

– Amal Clooney (international law)

– Alan Dershowitz (US constitutional law)

Legal expertise ensures moderation frameworks are lawful, proportionate, and appealable.

9. Consulted Communities, Not Just Activists

Include:

Free Speech Union

Ex-Muslim and reformist groups

Feminist and LGBT+ civil rights coalitions

National Secular Society 

A secular, pluralistic approach prevents monopolised representation and respects complexity within communities.

In summary, any replacement for CCDH should: – Be politically and financially independent

– Use transparent, peer-reviewed research methods

– Include a balance of perspectives from both left and right

– Involve experts in psychology, ethics, law, and tech

– Defend free speech and minority rights equally

– Be built with democratic legitimacy and public trust

This isn’t just about countering digital hate—it’s about preserving reasoned discourse in the digital age.

Ai & liz lucy robillard