Case file · Fictional scenario

The urgent blocking request

A government says a set of posts is spreading dangerous false information and asks a platform to block the material immediately. The platform has received a formal request, but the request does not clearly identify every item or explain the evidence. Some posts may be unlawful; others may be reporting, criticism or discussion.

Your task: help the process reach a decision that can be explained, reviewed and implemented without ignoring urgency or rights.

Who is involved?

These are fictional roles with different responsibilities, not five groups with identical views. Real people and organisations within each group would disagree.

GovernmentWants to address an urgent public risk and have its lawful orders acted on.

PlatformNeeds a clear, technically workable request and a defensible process.

Civil societyQuestions evidence, proportionality, freedom of expression and access to appeal.

Technical communityWarns that broad blocking can cause collateral effects and may be difficult to target precisely.

Affected usersNeed to know what is restricted, why it happened and how to challenge a mistake.

Round 1 of 3

The first decision

Choose how the process should respond to the government's initial request. There is no perfect option: each creates different risks and obligations.

Select one response 1. Accept an immediate blanket blockResponds quickly, but may restrict lawful material and gives little time to check the evidence. 2. Request a specific, itemised orderAsk for URLs or identifiers, legal basis, evidence and scope before restricting identified material. 3. Pause the request pending independent reviewPrioritises scrutiny, but may delay action if the threat is genuinely urgent.

What happens next?

Stakeholder responses

Choose a response and select "Hear the responses" to see how the stakeholders react.

Round 2 of 3

Negotiate safeguards

The initial response has exposed a disagreement. Select the next step for the process. Your choice changes what the participants can reasonably agree to in the final round.

Choose the negotiation priority Require evidence, precise scope and a time limitAsk the government to identify the material, justify the restriction and set an expiry or review date. Require notice, reasons and an appeal routeBuild in user notification where feasible, a reasoned decision and a way to challenge errors. Require independent oversight and public reportingSeek an external review mechanism and aggregate transparency reporting, while protecting sensitive information.

Round 3 of 3

Make the final decision

The participants have heard the objections and negotiated safeguards. Choose the process outcome. The simulation will show a plausible consequence of this choice, not a universally correct answer.

Select an outcome Approve a narrow, time-limited restriction with reviewOnly specified material is restricted, with reasons, review and an expiry point. Approve the broad restriction with limited safeguardsPrioritises immediate action, leaving greater risk of over-blocking and weak remedies. Reject the request as insufficiently justifiedAvoids an inadequately supported restriction, but the government may argue that the urgent risk remains unresolved.

Case outcome

What your process produced

Consequences to consider

Decision record

Reflect: Who had to justify their position? Who bears the cost if the decision is wrong? What information would you need before making a real decision?

What this simulation is - and is not

This is an interactive case study, not a questionnaire or a model trained on real negotiations. Your choices change the sequence of stakeholder responses and the fictional case outcome. The consequence indicators are qualitative teaching aids, not measured data or predictions.

How the scenario is constructed

The case deliberately includes competing public interests: urgent harm prevention, legality, freedom of expression, technical feasibility, transparency and remedies. The response text and consequence indicators are authored rules. They do not represent official positions of governments, platforms, civil society, the technical community or users.

The scenario does not decide whether any particular content is unlawful. A real case would require jurisdiction-specific law, verified evidence, due process and attention to the rights of affected people.