{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03387533875338753, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0047425474254742545, 'mean_word_length': 4.955645161290323, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Freedom of Expression on Social Networks: An International Perspective

Social networks are omnipresent; yet, there is no generally accepted definition of them. In order to define ‘social networks’ for our current purposes, we have identified several common features of existing social media platforms, which are presented in the literature.1 First, social networks are Web 2.0-based applications. The shift to Web 2.0 applications can be described as a shift from the user as a consumer to the user as a participant. These apps are designed to enable users to interact, create, and share content online. Second, user-generated content is the essential (but not exclusive) component of social networks. The notion of ‘user generated content’ is not limited to text, photos, or videos; it could well be a simple ‘like.’ Third, social networks connect user-specific profiles with those of other individuals or groups. User profiles are thus the pillars of every social network. The manner in which users identify themselves may vary, but every social network tracks users’ Internet Protocol (IP) address. Given their similarities from a freedom of speech perspective, we shall take the same approach stricto sensu to social networks, such as Facebook or Twitter, and video-sharing portals, such as YouTube. Analyzing the legal aspects of content censorship on social networks starts with the examination of the foundations of freedom of speech (Section 1.1), as well as the very