The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the LawFair podcast,

become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash law fair.

That's patreon.com slash law fair.

Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings,

rational security, chatter, law fair no bull, and the aftermath.

The problem is, oftentimes the threat, the way that the threat manifests on your platform,

is actually a function of the way that it's manifesting somewhere else on the internet.

And I do not think that platforms systematically have developed the ability to understand that actual threat dynamic

and then build it back into what they're doing on their own platform.

I'm Quinted Jurassic, and this is the LawFair podcast, May 26, 2022.

Today we're bringing you another episode of our Arbiters of Truth series on the online information ecosystem.

On May 14th, a shooter attacked a supermarket in a historically black neighborhood of Buffalo, New York,

killing 10 people and wounding three.

The streaming platform Twitch quickly disabled the live stream that the shooter had published of the attack,

but video of the violence and copies of the white supremacist manifesto released by the attacker online,

continue to circulate on the internet.

How should we evaluate the response of social media platforms to the tragedy in Buffalo?

Evelyn Duac and I spoke with Brian Fishman, who worked formally at Facebook,

now Metta, as the policy director for counterterrorism and dangerous organizations.

Brian helped to lead Facebook's response to the 2019 Christchurch shooting, another act of far-right violence live streamed online.

He walked us through how platforms respond to crises like these,

...