{"id":2336,"date":"2021-12-02T15:35:58","date_gmt":"2021-12-02T14:35:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/2021\/12\/02\/facebooks-secret-dangerous-organizations-and-individuals-list-creates-problems-for-the-company-and-its-users-eff\/"},"modified":"2021-12-02T15:35:58","modified_gmt":"2021-12-02T14:35:58","slug":"facebooks-secret-dangerous-organizations-and-individuals-list-creates-problems-for-the-company-and-its-users-eff","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/2021\/12\/02\/facebooks-secret-dangerous-organizations-and-individuals-list-creates-problems-for-the-company-and-its-users-eff\/","title":{"rendered":"Facebook&#039;s Secret \u201cDangerous Organizations and Individuals\u201d List Creates Problems for the Company\u2014and Its Users &#8211; EFF"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"cfbc967f0983488262956e73eca9483a\" data-index=\"1\" style=\"float: none; margin:10px 0 10px 0; text-align:center;\">\n<script async src=\"https:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3859091246952232\" crossorigin=\"anonymous\"><\/script>\r\n<!-- blok -->\r\n<ins class=\"adsbygoogle\" data-ad-client=\"ca-pub-3859091246952232\" data-ad-slot=\"1334354390\"><\/ins>\r\n<script>\r\n     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});\r\n<\/script>\r\n\n<\/div>\n<p><span>Along with the trove of \u00ab\u00a0Facebook Papers\u00a0\u00bb recently leaked to press outlets was a document that Facebook has, until now, kept intentionally secret: its list of \u00ab\u00a0Dangerous Organizations and Individuals.\u00a0\u00bb This list comprises supposed terrorist groups, hate groups, criminal groups, and individuals associated with each, and is used to filter and remove speech on the platform. We&rsquo;re glad to have transparency into the document now, but as <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2021\/10\/12\/facebook-secret-blacklist-dangerous\/\"><span>The Intercept recently reported<\/span><\/a><span>, and as Facebook likely expected, seeing the list raises alarm bells for free speech activists and people around the world who are put into difficult, if not impossible, positions when it comes to discussing individuals or organizations that may play major roles in their government, for better or for worse.\u00a0<\/span><br \/><span>While the list included many of the usual suspects, it also contained a number of charities and hospitals, as well as several musical groups, some of whom were likely surprised to find themselves lumped together with state-designated terrorist organizations. The leaked document demonstrated the opaque and seemingly arbitrary nature of Facebook\u2019s rulemaking.<\/span><br \/><b>Tricky business<\/b><br \/><span>Let\u2019s begin with an example: In August, as the Taliban gained control over Afghanistan and declared its intent to re-establish the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the role of the Internet\u2014and centralized social media platforms in particular\u2014became an intense focus of the media. Facebook was of particular focus, both for the <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/how-to-delete-facebook-safety-feature-protect-afghanistan-users-taliban-2021-8\"><span>safety features<\/span><\/a><span> it offered to Afghans and for the company\u2019s strong stance toward the Taliban.<\/span><br \/><span>The Taliban has long been listed as a terrorist organization by various entities, including the <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.un.org\/securitycouncil\/content\/un-sc-consolidated-list\"><span>United Nations<\/span><\/a><span> and the <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.state.gov\/foreign-terrorist-organizations\/\"><span>U.S. government<\/span><\/a><span>, but is additionally subject to various draconian <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Sanctions_against_Afghanistan\"><span>sanctions<\/span><\/a><span> since the 1990s by the UN Security Council, the U.S., and other countries that are designed to effectively prevent any economic or other service-related interactions with the Taliban.<\/span><br \/><span>As a result of these strict sanctions, a number of internet companies, including Facebook, had placed restrictions on the Taliban\u2019s use of their platforms even prior to the group\u2019s takeover. But as the group took power, Facebook <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.bbc.com\/news\/business-58239786\"><span>reportedly put new resources<\/span><\/a><span> into ensuring that the Taliban couldn\u2019t use their services. By contrast, Twitter continued to allow the group to maintain a presence, although they did later <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.aa.com.tr\/en\/asia-pacific\/twitter-restricts-account-of-taliban-s-longstanding-spokesman\/2382048\"><span>remove the Pashto and Dari accounts<\/span><\/a><span> of Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid, leaving only his English account intact.<\/span><br \/><span>The conflicting decisions taken by these and other companies, as well as their often-confused messaging around legal obligations vis-a-vis the Taliban and other extremist groups, is worth picking apart, particularly in light of the growing use of terrorist lists by states as a means of silencing and exclusion. Not one but several groups listed as terrorists by the United States occupy a significant role in their countries\u2019 governments.<\/span><br \/><span>As The Lawfare Podcast\u2019s Quinta Jurecic <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.lawfareblog.com\/lawfare-podcast-why-taliban-cant-use-facebook\"><span>put it<\/span><\/a><span>:\u00a0 \u201cWhat do you do when an insurgent group you\u2019ve blocked on your platform is now de facto running a country?\u201d<\/span><br \/><b>Legal obligations and privatized provisions<\/b><br \/><span>First, it\u2019s important to clarify where companies\u2019 legal obligations lie. There are three potential legal issues that come into play, and are, unfortunately, often conflated by company spokespeople.<\/span><br \/><span>The first is what is commonly referred to as \u201cmaterial support law,\u201d which prohibits U.S. persons and entities from providing material support (that is, financial or in-kind assistance) to groups on the <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.state.gov\/foreign-terrorist-organizations\/\"><span>State Department\u2019s list of foreign terrorist organizations<\/span><\/a><span> (FTO). As <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/wp\/caught-net-impact-extremist-speech-regulations-human-rights-content\"><span>we\u2019ve written previously<\/span><\/a><span>, \u201cas far as is publicly known, the U.S. government has not taken the position that allowing a designated foreign terrorist organization to use a free and freely available online platform is tantamount to \u2018providing material support\u2019 for such an organization, as is prohibited under the patchwork of U.S. anti-terrorism laws\u201d and U.S. courts have consistently rejected efforts to impose civil liability on online platforms when terrorist groups use them to communicate. More importantly, the Supreme Court has <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/09pdf\/08-1498.pdf\"><span>limited these restrictions<\/span><\/a><span> to concerted \u201cacts done for the benefit of or at the command of another.\u201d<\/span><br \/><span>This is important because, as various documents leaked from inside Facebook have repeatedly revealed, the company appears to use the FTO list as part of the basis for their own policy on what constitutes a \u201cdangerous organization\u201d (though, notably, their list goes <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2021\/10\/12\/facebook-secret-blacklist-dangerous\/\"><span>far beyond<\/span><\/a><span> that of the U.S. government). Furthermore, the company has <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/transparency.fb.com\/policies\/community-standards\/dangerous-individuals-organizations\/\"><span>rules<\/span><\/a><span> that restrict people who are <\/span><i><span>not<\/span><\/i><span> members of designated groups from praising or speaking positively in any way those entities\u2014which, in practice, has resulted in the removal of large swathes of expression, including art, counterspeech, and documentation of human rights violations. In other words, the company simply <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.wired.com\/story\/facebooks-global-reach-exceeds-linguistic-grasp\/\"><span>isn\u2019t very good at moderating<\/span><\/a><span> such a complex topic.<\/span><br \/><span>The second legal issue is related to the more complicated issue of sanctions. U.S. sanctions are issued by the <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/home.treasury.gov\/policy-issues\/office-of-foreign-assets-control-sanctions-programs-and-information\"><span>Department of Treasury\u2019s Office of Foreign Asset Controls<\/span><\/a><span> and have for many years had an impact on tech (we\u2019ve written about that previously in the context of country-level sanctions on, for instance, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/deeplinks\/2011\/07\/eff-u-s-treasury-and-commerce-time-clarify-u-s\"><span>Syria<\/span><\/a><span>).\u00a0<\/span><br \/><span>Facebook has <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/08\/18\/world\/facebook-reaffirms-a-ban-on-taliban-accounts-even-as-the-group-looks-to-communicate-a-new-message.html\"><span>stated explicitly<\/span><\/a><span> that it removes groups\u2014and praise of those groups\u2014which are subject to U.S. sanctions, and that it relies on sanctions policy to \u201cproactively take down anything that we can that might be dangerous or is related to the Taliban in general.\u201d<\/span><br \/><span>Specifically, the sanctions policy that Facebook relies upon stems from an Executive Order, 13224, issued by then-president George W. Bush in 2002. The Order <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.state.gov\/executive-order-13224\/\"><span>reads<\/span><\/a><span>:<\/span><br \/><span>\u201cIn general terms, the Order provides a means by which to disrupt the financial support network for terrorists and terrorist organizations by authorizing the U.S. government to designate and block the assets of foreign individuals and entities that commit, or pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism. In addition, because of the pervasiveness and expansiveness of the financial foundations of foreign terrorists, the Order authorizes the U.S. government to block the assets of individuals and entities that provide support, services, or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists and terrorist organizations designated under the Order, as well as their subsidiaries, front organizations, agents, and associates.\u201d<\/span><br \/><span>The Executive Order is linked to a corresponding list of <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/home.treasury.gov\/policy-issues\/financial-sanctions\/specially-designated-nationals-and-blocked-persons-list-sdn-human-readable-lists\"><span>\u201cspecially designated\u201d nationals<\/span><\/a><span> (SDNs)\u2014groups and individuals\u2014who are subject to the sanctions.<\/span><br \/><span>But whether this policy applies to social media platforms hosting speech remains an open question about which experts disagree. On the aforementioned <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.lawfareblog.com\/lawfare-podcast-why-taliban-cant-use-facebook\"><span>Lawfare Podcast<\/span><\/a><span>, Scott R. Anderson, a senior editor at Lawfare and a fellow at the Brookings Institution, explained that companies are facing a <\/span><i><span>potential<\/span><\/i><span> legal risk in providing in-kind support (that is, a platform for their speech) to SDNs. But while hosting actual SDNs may be a risky endeavor, Faiza Patel and Mary Pat Dwyer at the <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.brennancenter.org\/our-work\/analysis-opinion\/so-what-does-facebook-take-down-secret-list-dangerous-individuals-and\"><span>Brennan Center for Justice<\/span><\/a><span> recently argued that, despite repeated claims by Facebook and Instagram, they are not in fact required to remove praise or positive commentary about groups that are listed as SDNs or FTOs.<\/span><br \/><span>US courts have alsoy rejected civil claims brought by victims of terrorist acts and their families against social media platforms, where those claims were\u00a0 based on the fact that terrorists or terrorist\u00a0 organizations used the platforms to organize and\/or spread their messages. Although strong constitutional arguments exist, these cases are typically decided on statutory grounds. In <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/document\/fields-v-twitter-ninth-circuit-opinion\"><span>some<\/span><\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca6\/18-1426\/18-1426-2019-04-16.html\"><span>cases,<\/span><\/a><span> the claims are rejected because the social media platforms\u2019 actions were not a direct enough cause of the harm as required by the <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/18\/2333\"><span>Anti-Terrorism Act<\/span><\/a><span>, the law that creates the civil claims. In other cases, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca2\/18-397\/18-397-2019-07-31.html\"><span>courts<\/span><\/a><span> have found the claims barred by <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/issues\/cda230\"><span>Section 230<\/span><\/a><span>, the US intermediary immunity law.<\/span><br \/><b>An especially tricky community standard<\/b><br \/><span>Facebook\u2019s Dangerous Individuals and Organizations community standard has proven to be one its most problematic. The standard has been at issue in six of the 21 cases the <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/oversightboard.com\/decision\/\"><span>Oversight Board<\/span><\/a><span> has taken. The Oversight Board <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/oversightboard.com\/decision\/FB-P93JPX02\/\"><span>has<\/span><\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/oversightboard.com\/decision\/IG-I9DP23IB\/\"><span>repeatedly<\/span><\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oversightboard.com\/decision\/FB-2RDRCAVQ\"><span>criticized <\/span><\/a><span>its vagueness. Facebook responded by clarifying the meaning of some of the terms, but <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/oversightboard.com\/decision\/FB-P93JPX02\/\"><span>left some ambiguity <\/span><\/a><span>and also increased its unguided discretion in some cases. In <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/oversightboard.com\/decision\/FB-P93JPX02\/\"><span>one matter<\/span><\/a><span>, Facebook had removed a post that shared news content from Al Jazeera about a threat of violence from the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, because the DIO policy stated that sharing official communications of Facebook-designated dangerous organizations was a form of substantive support\u2014failing to apply its own exception for news reporting and neutral discussions. Facebook reversed the decision only after the Oversight Board selected the case, as it did in <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/oversightboard.com\/decision\/IG-I9DP23IB\/\"><span>two<\/span><\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/l.facebook.com\/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Foversightboard.secure.force.com%2Fapex%2FVisualAntidote__HostedFastForm%3Ff%3D9Ac1nr98tRVSvv9jiNsZmNMpO4JXAxVpDBtqz0H%252FSmFOgabaPN1alSQ5sZ%252FgCL2Q&amp;h=AT1U9iIi6WjpuQ_ClBtY-LBZqkVyhTz4OAHt8gAk_-JRixZLuT8_RUA2StB9ejigxzn3jU3vgVS4v36mZBW7RzEbdI57kfyxkS24MD9s6iR0Dh_Rb_q1MAcmIwBMF6nB\"><span>other<\/span><\/a><span> similar cases. In <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/oversightboard.com\/decision\/IG-I9DP23IB\/\"><span>another<\/span><\/a><span> case, Facebook apparently misplaced important policy guidance in implementing the DIO policy for three years.\u00a0<\/span><br \/><b>The real-world harms of Facebook\u2019s policy<\/b><br \/><span>While Facebook\u2014and indeed, many Western counter-terrorism professionals\u2014seem to view the primary harm in hosting the speech of terrorist organizations, there are real and significant harms to enacting sweeping policies that remove such a broad range of expression related to groups that, for better or worse, play a role in governance. The way that Facebook implements its policies\u2014using <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.technologyreview.com\/2017\/06\/16\/151174\/facebook-is-enlisting-human-experts-and-ai-to-fight-terrorism\/\"><span>automation<\/span><\/a><span> to remove whatever it deems to be terrorist or extremist content with little to no human oversight\u2014has resulted in overly broad takedowns of all sorts of legitimate speech. Despite this, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/the-switch\/wp\/2018\/04\/10\/transcript-of-mark-zuckerbergs-senate-hearing\/\"><span>Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly stated a belief<\/span><\/a><span> that automation (not nuanced human review) is the way forward.<\/span><br \/><span>The combination of ever-increasing automation and Facebook\u2019s vague and opaque rules (none of which cite any legal requirements) make it impossible for users in affected countries to understand what they can and cannot say.<\/span><br \/><span>As such, a Lebanese citizen must carefully avoid coming across as supporting Hezbollah, one of many political parties in their country that have historically engaged in violence against civilians. An Afghan seeking essential services from their government may simply not be able to find them online. And the footage of violence committed by extremist groups diligently recorded by a Syrian citizen journalist may never see the light of day, as it will likely be blocked by an upload filter.\u00a0<\/span><br \/><span>While companies are, as always, well within their rights to create rules that bar groups that they find undesirable\u2014be they U.S.-designated terrorist organizations or domestic white supremacist groups\u2014the lack of transparency behind these rules serves absolutely no one.<\/span><br \/><span>We understand that Facebook feels bound by perceived legal obligations. The Department of Treasury can and should clarify those obligations j<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/deeplinks\/2010\/03\/better-u-s-net-rules-iran-cuba-and-syria\"><span>ust as they did under the Obama administration<\/span><\/a><span>. But Facebook also has a responsibility to be transparent to its users and let them know, in clear and unambiguous terms, exactly what they can and cannot discuss on its platforms.<\/span><br \/>A UN human rights committee examining the status of civil and political rights in Germany took aim at the country\u2019s Network Enforcement Act, or NetzDG, criticizing the hate speech law in a recent report for enlisting social media companies to carry out government censorship, with no judicial oversight of content&#8230;<br \/>For many years, Palestinian rights defenders have championed the cause of Palestinians in the occupied territories, who are denied access to PayPal, while Israeli settlers have full access to PayPal products. A <a href=\"https:\/\/paypal.7amleh.org\/\">recent campaign<\/a><u>,<\/u> led by Palestinian digital rights group <a href=\"https:\/\/7amleh.org\">7amleh<\/a>, calls on PayPal to adhere to its&#8230;<br \/><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/08\/10\/opinion\/facebook-misinformation.html\">Facebook recently banned the accounts of several New York University (NYU) researchers who run Ad Observer<\/a>, an accountability project that tracks paid disinformation, from its platform. This has major implications: not just for transparency, but for user autonomy and the fight for interoperable software.Ad Observer is a free\/open source&#8230;<br \/>Body bags claiming that \u201cdisinformation kills\u201d <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/technology\/2021\/jul\/28\/facebook-protest-vaccine-disinformation\">line the streets<\/a> today in front of Facebook\u2019s Washington, D.C. headquarters. A group of protesters, affiliated with \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/the-citizens.com\/real-facebook-oversight\/\">The Real Facebook Oversight Board<\/a>\u201d (an organization that is, confusingly, not affiliated with Facebook or its Oversight Board), is urging Facebook\u2019s shareholders to ban so-called&#8230;<br \/>The Advocate General (AG) of the EU Court of Justice today missed an opportunity to fully protect internet users from censorship by automated filtering, finding that the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/deeplinks\/2016\/11\/users-around-world-reject-europes-upload-filtering-proposal\">disastrous<\/a> Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive doesn\u2019t run afoul of Europeans\u2019 free expression rights. The good news is that the&#8230;<br \/>We are happy to see the news that Facebook is putting an end to a policy that has long privileged the speech of politicians over that of ordinary users. The policy change, which was <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theverge.com\/2021\/6\/3\/22474738\/facebook-ending-political-figure-exemption-moderation-policy\">announced<\/a> on Friday by The Verge, is something that EFF <a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/deeplinks\/2019\/10\/facebook-shouldnt-give-politicians-more-power-ordinary-users\">has been pushing for<\/a>&#8230;<br \/><b><\/b>Last week, the Florida Legislature passed a bill prohibiting social media platforms from \u201cknowingly deplatforming\u201d a candidate (the Transparency in Technology Act, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.flsenate.gov\/Session\/Bill\/2021\/7072\/?Tab=BillHistory\">SB 7072<\/a>), on pain of a fine of up to $250k per day, unless, I kid you not, the platform owns a sufficiently large theme park. Governor&#8230;<br \/>Today\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/oversightboard.com\/news\/226612455899839-oversight-board-upholds-former-president-trump-s-suspension-finds-facebook-failed-to-impose-proper-penalty\/\">decision from the Facebook Oversight Board<\/a> regarding the suspension of President Trump\u2019s account \u2014 to extend the suspension for six months and require Facebook to reevaluate in light of the platform\u2019s stated policies \u2014 may be frustrating to those who had hoped for a definitive ruling. But it&#8230;<br \/>San Francisco\u2014The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today released a white paper outlining how we can usher in a new regime of interoperability aimed at breaking big tech\u2019s grip on users\u2019 Internet experience while still protecting user privacy. In a white paper entitled <a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/wp\/interoperability-and-privacy\"><em>Privacy Without Monopoly: Data Protection and Interoperability<\/em><\/a>,&#8230;<br \/><a href=\"#main-content\">Back to top<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/deeplinks\/2021\/12\/facebooks-secret-dangerous-organizations-and-individuals-list-creates-problems\">source<\/a><\/p>\n<!--CusAds0-->\n<div style=\"font-size: 0px; height: 0px; line-height: 0px; margin: 0; padding: 0; clear: both;\"><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Along with the trove of \u00ab\u00a0Facebook Papers\u00a0\u00bb recently leaked to press outlets was a document that Facebook has, until now, kept intentionally secret: its list of \u00ab\u00a0Dangerous Organizations and Individuals.\u00a0\u00bb This list comprises supposed terrorist groups, hate groups, criminal groups, and individuals associated with each, and is used to filter and remove speech on the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"googlesitekit_rrm_CAow1sXXCw:productID":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2336","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2336","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2336"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2336\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2336"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2336"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2336"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}