Inequalities and content moderation
| Published date | 01 November 2023 |
| Author | Giovanni De Gregorio,Nicole Stremlau |
| Date | 01 November 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13243 |
870
|
Global Policy. 2023;14:870–879.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/gpol
1 | INTRODUCTION
Large social media companies frequently proclaim
their ability to diminish the spatial divide between indi-
viduals and nations, effacing bound aries with a utopian
vision characteristic of Silicon Valley, encapsulated in
Facebook's mission to “bring the worl d closer together”
(Facebook, 2021; Zuckerberg,2021). This grandiose,
and increasingly broken save- the- world mission, not
only obfuscates the potential harms these large tech
companies may cause, but it often conceals entren ched
inequalities, particularly in relation to aligning content
moderation with international human rights standards.
When the relative swift moderation of content related to
the Christchurch shooting in New Zealand is jux taposed
with the negligence towards the role of social media in
genocide in Myanmar in 2018 or, more recently, in the
conflict in Ethiopia, the conspicuous geographical bias
in content moderation is evident.
This disparity is also reflected in the divergent de-
bates about regulatory strategies to address the chal-
lenges of content moderation. In contrast with the
intensive regulatory approach of the European Union to
address concerns of social media through far- reaching
instruments such as the Digital Services Act, debate in
the United States has largely centred on the role of the
First Amendment and self- regulation by the tech com-
panies themselves. The chasm between deb ates about
social media regulation across the Atlantic draws at-
tention to just how challenging this issue is to address,
and even more so for countries with very different po-
litical structures, many of which are in the global south.
These regions often find themselves marginalized in
current regulatory discussions, even as the global pro-
liferation of harmful speech online is raising questions
about the responsibility, and the ability, of social media
companies to effectively tackle these challenges.
Many countries in Africa and Asia have been regarded
by US social mediacompanies, international advocacy
groups, or governments in the global north, as unable
to be trusted with interventionist policies (including for
economic policy or laws) or in this case the regulation
of online platforms, which may be seen as a proxy for
censoring speech. In some cases, these concerns may
be justified. Efforts by African governments to regulate
social media, address online hate or counter misinfor-
mation during election periods have been interpreted as
veering towards censorship, stifling dissent or suppress-
ing protests. Many of the current legislative initiatives
proposed by African governments to address harmful
online content have been criticized as threats to freedom
of expression, thereby placing additional responsibilities
POLICY INSIGHTS
Inequalities and content moderation
GiovanniDeGregorio1 | NicoleStremlau2,3
Received: 13 Januar y 2023
|
Revised: 8 June 202 3
|
Accepted: 19 June 202 3
DO I: 10 .1111/17 58- 589 9.13 243
1Católica Globa l School of Law, Lisbon,
Portugal
2University of O xford, Oxford, UK
3University of J ohannesburg,
Johannesburg, South Africa
Correspondence
Nicole Strem lau, University of Oxfor d,
Oxford, UK.
Email: nicole.stremlau@csls.ox.ac.uk
Funding information
European Research Council, Grant/Award
Number: 716686
Abstract
As the harms of hate speech, mis/disinformation and incitement to violence on
social media have become increasingly apparent, calls for regulation have ac-
celerated. Most of these debates have centred around the needs and concerns
of large markets such as the EU and the United States, or the aggressive ap-
proach countries such as Russia and China adopt to regulate online content.
Our focus in this article is with the rest, the smaller markets at the periphery of
the advertising industry, and the deep inequalities that current approaches to
content moderation perpetuate. We outline the depth of the unequal practice of
moderation, particularly across Africa, and explore the underlying political and
economic factors driving this gap. While recognizing content moderation has
many limitations, we conclude by underlining potential approaches to increase
oversight in content moderation.
This is an open ac cess article under t he terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction
in any medium, prov ided the original work i s properly cited and is not u sed for commercial pur poses.
© 2023 The Authors . Global Policy published by Durham Universi ty and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting