{"id":38410,"date":"2025-10-20T16:47:43","date_gmt":"2025-10-20T16:47:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/?p=38410"},"modified":"2025-10-20T17:07:46","modified_gmt":"2025-10-20T17:07:46","slug":"instagram-pg-13-rating","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/","title":{"rendered":"Instagram’s Borrowed Credibility: Why its \u201cPG-13 Ratings\u201d Initiative Falls Short"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Instagram’s recent announcement<\/a> that it will be \u201cguided\u201d by PG-13 ratings to determine what teens will see on its platform is, at first glance, a reassuring move for parents. The Motion Picture Association (MPA)\u2019s familiar rating system<\/a> is designed to provide parents with the information they need to determine if a film is appropriate for their children. As a former marketing executive, I can absolutely imagine the Instagram-sponsored focus group in which a group of parents concerned about their children\u2019s exposure to toxic content on social media said something along the lines of, \u201cI wish there were a rating system for internet content, like the movies have.\u201d (What Instagram is trying to do here also has its roots in marketing: \u201cBorrowed equity\u201d refers to a strategy where a brand leverages the existing trust, reputation, and credibility of another company, organization, or brand to enhance its own brand image.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what Instagram has announced isn\u2019t that. Not even close. When compared to the actual rules and practices of the Motion Picture Association it purports to emulate, Instagram\u2019s claim falls apart. In fact, the Chairman and CEO of the MPA, Hollywood studios\u2019 main trade group, stated within hours of Instagram\u2019s announcement<\/a> that \u201c…assertions that Instagram\u2019s new tool will be \u2018guided by PG-13 movie ratings\u2019 or have any connection to the film industry\u2019s rating system are inaccurate.\u201d Neither Instagram nor its parent company, Meta, ever actually conferred with the MPA. Also, whether parents actually wished for it or not, Instagram\u2019s announcement is based on a false premise: that parents<\/em> can or should bear the main responsibility for ensuring their kids are only exposed to age-appropriate content in social spaces. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s a recap of the very big differences between the MPA\u2019s voluntary, transparent, and independent system and Instagram’s opaque, self-governed, and self-serving one. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ll start with what the two systems do, in fact, have in common: The MPA\u2019s rating system was a voluntary film industry initiative designed to hold off government regulation. It was developed in 1968 as an alternative to the old \u201cHays Code<\/a>\u201d and the threat of local censorship boards. At a time when the only technology regulation Congress may \u2013 let me repeat, may<\/em> \u2013 be able to agree on is the need to protect children (and 35 states are working<\/a> on the same thing), the regulatory threat Instagram is facing is quite real. Both systems are also rooted in a need to insulate constitutionally protected speech \u2013 user posts and motion pictures<\/a> \u2013 from government<\/em> evaluation and control. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The similarities, however, end there. Whatever its origins, the MPA\u2019s film ratings now comprise a widely adopted, industry-standard system used by studios, filmmakers, theaters, and distributors, as well as a resource trusted by a majority of parents. In contrast, Instagram’s new filter is a walled garden: proprietary and confined entirely to its own platform. Its content decisions have no external point of reference and no bearing beyond the Instagram app itself. It provides no guidance to creators on how to ensure their content will be seen by intended audiences. Built upon Instagram\u2019s existing \u201cTeen Accounts<\/a>,\u201d which have come under considerable criticism<\/a> since their introduction last year, the new guidelines also hinge on the ability of Meta’s own artificial intelligence systems<\/a> to \u201cfind suspected teens on [its] platforms and proactively place them in Teen Account settings.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The MPA\u2019s ratings system rests on an independent and transparent rating body and process. The Classification and Ratings Administration (CARA) is an independent group of parents (their individual identities are private to avoid attempts at influence). It is transparent about the factors considered<\/a>, such as violence, language, and sexual content, providing parents with specific reasons for a rating. In addition to letter ratings, CARA provides brief descriptions of the specifics behind a movie\u2019s rating of PG, PG-13, R, or NC-17. Instagram’s content filtering algorithms, however, constitute a black box. Instagram says that teens\u2019 experiences in the 13+ setting will \u201cfeel closer to the Instagram equivalent of watching a PG-13 movie.\u201d But the platform has not released the specific metrics, policies, or algorithmic rules it will use to determine what is and isn’t \u201cPG-13,\u201d nor has it offered to provide any data on the impacts of the initiative to researchers (or parents, or anyone else). That means parents won\u2019t really be able to assess what their kids are going to experience. The lack of standardized, public criteria makes Instagram\u2019s claim to be \u201cguided by PG-13\u201d purely performative. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another way the MPA has established its ratings\u2019 credibility is its public and transparent appeals process. Filmmakers who disagree with a rating can, and frequently do, contest the decision. An independent appeals board, which includes members outside the MPA, hears arguments and re-evaluates the film. Instagram\u2019s new content controls offer no such recourse. The lack of an appeals process means Instagram\u2019s \u201cratings\u201d are final, unreviewable, and opaque, operating outside any standard of public accountability. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instagram noted that it will continue to run \u201cregular surveys\u201d on Instagram inviting parents to review a series of posts that Instagram has already shown to teens<\/em>, to \u201cconfirm\u201d whether parents think they\u2019re appropriate for teens. This method means that none of Instagram\u2019s stakeholders\u00a0\u2013 creators, teen users, parents, or regulators\u00a0\u2013 will ever know what content was filtered out. <\/em>That means creators can\u2019t adapt their content or appeal its categorization, and neither teens nor parents can understand or anticipate the impacts of the overall algorithm that enforces the PG-13 filter. Nor will it be clear what its societal impacts are: For example, a recent investigation<\/a> showed that Meta, Instagram\u2019s parent company, had been restricting content with LGBTQ-related hashtags from search and discovery on its platforms.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the integrity of the MPA\u2019s rating board is rooted in its independence from the major studios whose films the MPA rates. CARA\u2019s raters are parents who work outside the film industry, a deliberate structure designed to ensure objective decision-making. Their purpose is to try to reflect the values of American parents, not to advance the commercial interests of any single filmmaker, studio, distributor or theatre. Instagram’s new system, however, constitutes \u201crating its own homework.\u201d The same company that profits from distributing the content is still responsible for policing it. This inherent conflict of interest undermines any claim of objectivity and allows Instagram to define and enforce its standards in a way that serves its own advertising-based business model. (We had related concerns about the Oversight Board that Facebook, now Meta, put in place to review important and disputed content moderation cases; these are expressed here<\/a> and here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the company\u2019s announcement, Instagram points to surveys showing parents\u2019 satisfaction<\/a> with its proposed \u201cPG-13 ratings.\u201d (Note: The parents\u2019 \u201csatisfaction\u201d is based on a verbal description of the ratings system, since it hadn\u2019t been introduced yet.) Even if parents\u2019 satisfaction holds in real life, this is a distraction from the main point: The best way to ensure safe, healthy online experiences for kids and teens is not<\/em> to restrict children\u2019s access to technology platforms or specific pieces of content, but to require technology companies to design those services with children\u2019s wellbeing as a primary consideration. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Instagram\u2019s new system, teens under 18 will be automatically placed into a special \u201c13+\u201d setting, and they won\u2019t be able to opt out without a parent\u2019s permission. Parents can also choose a new, stricter setting that restricts even more content. That shifts much responsibility for safe and healthy online experiences to individual users and their families, instead of the corporations that profit from the use of their online platforms. As we noted in our recent paper, \u201cThe Kids Aren\u2019t Alright Online: How To Build a Safer, Better Internet for Everyone<\/a>,\u201d rather than asking children to navigate exploitative systems or parents to police every online interaction, we should demand that companies build platforms that are safe for everyone<\/em> by default.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a marketing strategy, Instagram\u2019s attempt to borrow the equity of the MPA\u2019s \u201cPG-13 ratings\u201d is pretty clever. But this clever branding masks a system that lacks the accountability and transparency that defines the credibility of the ratings it seeks to emulate.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The new rating system has some major differences from its film industry counterpart.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":189,"featured_media":38077,"parent":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[11],"class_list":["post-38410","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-insights","tag-content-moderation"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nInstagram's Borrowed Credibility: Why its \u201cPG-13 Ratings\u201d Initiative Falls Short - Public Knowledge<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The social media platform's new content rating system has some major differences from its film industry counterpart.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Instagram's Borrowed Credibility: Why its \u201cPG-13 Ratings\u201d Initiative Falls Short\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The social media platform's new content rating system has some major differences from its film industry counterpart.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Public Knowledge\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-10-20T16:47:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-10-20T17:07:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/black-and-white-phone.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Lisa Macpherson\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Lisa Macpherson\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Lisa Macpherson\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#\/schema\/person\/757e28331d7a5e31a3290be1d16d219b\"},\"headline\":\"Instagram’s Borrowed Credibility: Why its \u201cPG-13 Ratings\u201d Initiative Falls Short\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-10-20T16:47:43+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-10-20T17:07:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/\"},\"wordCount\":1394,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/black-and-white-phone.png\",\"keywords\":[\"Content Moderation\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Insights\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/\",\"name\":\"Instagram's Borrowed Credibility: Why its \u201cPG-13 Ratings\u201d Initiative Falls Short - Public Knowledge\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/black-and-white-phone.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-10-20T16:47:43+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-10-20T17:07:46+00:00\",\"description\":\"The social media platform's new content rating system has some major differences from its film industry counterpart.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/black-and-white-phone.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/black-and-white-phone.png\",\"width\":2000,\"height\":1000},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Instagram’s Borrowed Credibility: Why its \u201cPG-13 Ratings\u201d Initiative Falls Short\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/\",\"name\":\"Public Knowledge\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Public Knowledge\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/pk_social_logo-2.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/pk_social_logo-2.png\",\"width\":400,\"height\":200,\"caption\":\"Public Knowledge\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#\/schema\/person\/757e28331d7a5e31a3290be1d16d219b\",\"name\":\"Lisa Macpherson\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a7ccfea9aef75381949570e9237ff7f0ef0efcd0f80308496086b5b8f6a2989e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a7ccfea9aef75381949570e9237ff7f0ef0efcd0f80308496086b5b8f6a2989e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Lisa Macpherson\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/author\/lisa-macpherson\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Instagram's Borrowed Credibility: Why its \u201cPG-13 Ratings\u201d Initiative Falls Short - Public Knowledge","description":"The social media platform's new content rating system has some major differences from its film industry counterpart.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Instagram's Borrowed Credibility: Why its \u201cPG-13 Ratings\u201d Initiative Falls Short","og_description":"The social media platform's new content rating system has some major differences from its film industry counterpart.","og_url":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/","og_site_name":"Public Knowledge","article_published_time":"2025-10-20T16:47:43+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-10-20T17:07:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2000,"height":1000,"url":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/black-and-white-phone.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Lisa Macpherson","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Lisa Macpherson","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/"},"author":{"name":"Lisa Macpherson","@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#\/schema\/person\/757e28331d7a5e31a3290be1d16d219b"},"headline":"Instagram’s Borrowed Credibility: Why its \u201cPG-13 Ratings\u201d Initiative Falls Short","datePublished":"2025-10-20T16:47:43+00:00","dateModified":"2025-10-20T17:07:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/"},"wordCount":1394,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/black-and-white-phone.png","keywords":["Content Moderation"],"articleSection":["Insights"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/","url":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/","name":"Instagram's Borrowed Credibility: Why its \u201cPG-13 Ratings\u201d Initiative Falls Short - Public Knowledge","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/black-and-white-phone.png","datePublished":"2025-10-20T16:47:43+00:00","dateModified":"2025-10-20T17:07:46+00:00","description":"The social media platform's new content rating system has some major differences from its film industry counterpart.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/black-and-white-phone.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/black-and-white-phone.png","width":2000,"height":1000},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/instagram-pg-13-rating\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Instagram’s Borrowed Credibility: Why its \u201cPG-13 Ratings\u201d Initiative Falls Short"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/","name":"Public Knowledge","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#organization","name":"Public Knowledge","url":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/pk_social_logo-2.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/pk_social_logo-2.png","width":400,"height":200,"caption":"Public Knowledge"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#\/schema\/person\/757e28331d7a5e31a3290be1d16d219b","name":"Lisa Macpherson","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a7ccfea9aef75381949570e9237ff7f0ef0efcd0f80308496086b5b8f6a2989e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a7ccfea9aef75381949570e9237ff7f0ef0efcd0f80308496086b5b8f6a2989e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Lisa Macpherson"},"url":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/author\/lisa-macpherson\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38410","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/189"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38410"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38410\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/38077"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38410"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38410"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38410"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}