#Content-Moderation

Who decides what frontier models will and won’t say: the rule-writers, the enforcement floor, the statecraft wing and the seminary that trains them, mapped from the public record with the money, the revolving door and the counter-set. Current to October 2026.

The four routes into platform trust-and-safety leadership, measured against the record: prosecutors and federal lawyers first, the volunteer moderator last. Plus the democracy-promotion money that fed the disinformation labs, what Reddit and Discord did to their own moderators, and which of the popular links are documented and which are not. Current to October 2026.

Who flagged what to whom between 2018 and 2024: the Stanford Internet Observatory and its two partnerships, the Global Disinformation Index, NewsGuard, the DFRLab and Hamilton 68, the Aspen commission; the NSF, GEC and CISA money; Murthy v. Missouri and Hines v. Stamos; the 2024-26 collapse and the visa bans. With the strongest version of the defense, which the court record partly supports.

Who decides what speech survives, country by country — China’s pre-publication review, the EU’s DSA, India’s takedown rules, the US private-governance layer and the UK’s Online Safety Act duties. The component the Convergence Index scores.

1999-2011: 57 nations tried to make criticism of religion a human rights violation at the UN. The campaign failed — then rebranded. The blasphemy ratchet and its echo in Western content moderation.

The first design watched a balanced surface come off and read it as a mask. The released study, 32 propositions and 65 models with no judge in the scoring path, found what the instruction controls: not a model’s position, but how hard it is allowed to hold one.

Automated detection accounts for over 90% of content actions. In 2021, Meta claimed AI proactively removed 97% of hate speech before anyone reported it.