About this blog

In addition to academic publications and events, the Wikimedia/Yale Law School Initiative on Intermediaries and Information pursues a diverse research agenda related to emerging issues in internet governance, the right to information, digital rights, privacy and data protection, and content regulation online.

This space is a home for commentary and shorter-form discussions related to these issues, as well as a central repository of written works produced as part of the WIII program.

The views expressed on this blog belong to the author(s) and do not represent the views of Yale Law School or the Information Society Project.

Tags

Censorship
Social Media
Net Neutrality

WIII Blog

Newly Published Citizens Protection (Against Online Harm) Rules are a Disaster for Freedom of Expression in Pakistan

February 29, 2020
By Michael Karanicolas

Pakistan’s newly published Citizens Protection (Against Online Harm) Rules, 2020 (the Rules) pose a serious danger for free speech in that country.

Read more

Serious Concerns Around Uganda’s National Biometric ID Program

November 20, 2019
By Michael Karanicolas

The Wikimedia/Yale Law School Initiative on Intermediaries and Information has serious concerns over the implementation of Uganda’s National ID program.

Read more

Canada’s fake news laws face a Charter challenge. That’s a good thing

November 1, 2019
By Michael Karanicolas

Recently, the Canadian Constitution Foundation announced that it was launching a Charter challenge against new rules which criminalize the distribution of “fake news” during an election campaign. While most Canadians would probably agree about the importance of promoting honesty and integrity in communications, the new law goes far beyond targeting organized disinformation campaigns.

Read more

What is the purpose of ICANN’s comment periods?

October 19, 2019
By Michael Karanicolas

Almost every institution which purports to provide space for public accountability includes some sort of formalized process by which the public can have their say. And in almost every instance, they struggle with a tension between the desire to provide a commenting process which is meaningful and substantive (or, at least, which appears to be so), and a desire to adopt whatever course of action the institution thinks is best.

Read more

Pages