Content Moderation Shift: Demotion Over Removal Proposed for Social Platforms
A new paper by Jeff Howard and Beatriz Kira, discussed in this YouTube video, proposes that social media platforms should prioritize demoting rather than removing problematic content, guided by international human rights law. This framework suggests implications for content moderation strategies and platform responsibilities. The discussion covers how this approach could affect various types of content, from misinformation to content promoting self-harm.
Key Takeaways
- The paper, authored by Jeff Howard and Beatriz Kira, argues for demoting instead of removing content, drawing on international human rights law.
- Demotion reduces content visibility without outright removal, impacting moderation for issues like climate misinformation and self-harm content.
- The framework addresses when demotion is justified, when removal is excessive, and platforms' transparency obligations to users.
- Jeff Howard is a Professor of Political Philosophy and Public Policy at UCL Department of Political Science and founding Director of the Digital Speech Lab.
Why It Matters
This proposed shift from removal to demotion could redefine how social media platforms handle problematic content, potentially altering their operational guidelines and user experience. By aligning content moderation with international human rights law, it introduces a standardized framework for platform responsibilities. What to watch: Whether major social media platforms begin to integrate this demotion-first strategy into their public content policies and algorithms.
Additional Context
The discussion around content moderation frequently involves the application of international human rights law (IHRL) to platform policies. Per a 2023 ARTICLE 19 report, social media companies often remove more content than necessary under international freedom of expression standards, with policies like TikTok's blanket prohibition of misogyny not meeting ICCPR requirements. This report highlights that platforms should establish unambiguous terms of service aligned with human rights norms, produce transparency reports on government demands, ensure proportionate sanctions, and provide effective user remedies. Another report from Justitia in 2021, on the future of free speech, noted a significant increase in content removal by platforms, with Facebook removing 22.3 million pieces of content for hate speech in Q3 2021, up from 2.5 million in Q1 2018. This trend, it argues, leads to platforms becoming the “ultimate arbiters of harm, truth, and the practical limits of free expression.” These reports emphasize the need for clear definitions, human review, and transparency in content moderation processes, advocating for less restrictive measures where possible and robust appeal mechanisms for users. The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression (2019 report) also underscores that states should not use internet companies to limit expression which they themselves would be precluded from limiting under IHRL, and that strict adherence to these standards protects against governmental excesses.
Read full article at youtube.com
Enjoy our coverage?
Add StreamingMeme as a preferred source on Google to see more of our streaming news at the top of your Search results.
Add as preferred source