PhilMod aims to build dialogue and facilitate cooperation between academic researchers and technology professionals interested in social media platform policy. While there is a burgeoning scholarly literature on content moderation, algorithmic recommendation, and platform design, very few spaces allow academic researchers and technology professionals to engage in joint reflection on the philosophical problems it poses.

PhilMod is guided by the belief that academic philosophers and technology professionals are often interested in answering similar philosophical questions (e.g., what kind of online content counts as harmful; what are the limits of freedom of expression on social media, what are the democratic values with which recommenders should be aligned; how does AI-generated content affect collective knowledge; can platforms legitimately govern the digital public sphere?).

PhilMod is targeted at scholars and technology professionals who are interested in reflecting upon concepts and issues that are currently at the forefront of social media platform policy. Topics to be discussed include AI-generated content, misinformation, hate speech, inauthentic behavior, digital democracy, freedom of expression, and much more. By reflecting upon these themes, our goal is to engage in a form of applied philosophical thinking that can guide policy.

Technology professionals are often under the legal obligation not to share their work with the public. Under no circumstances will they be asked or pressured to do so. Our discussions focus on general philosophical questions that relate to social media platform policy, not on the work of particular individuals. Chatam House Rules apply to our meetings.

PhilMod welcomes academic researchers and technology professionals from diverse backgrounds regardless of their prior engagement with philosophy (or lack thereof). Technology professionals who are currently looking for their next position are also welcome. We also aim to apply philosophical reflection to a wide range of social, cultural, and political contexts. By way of example, our discussions are sensitive to the fact that people living in the U.S. might be inclined to define concepts such as “harmful speech,” “misinformation” and “sexual content” in a different manner than those living elsewhere and that, as a result, good moderation practices might vary from one context to another.