It's not censorship if we call it content moderation
In the vast expanse of the digital landscape, a peculiar phenomenon has taken hold: the notion that content moderation is a benevolent force, safeguarding users from the darker corners of the internet. This myth has been perpetuated by tech giants, who tout their moderation practices as a necessary evil, a bulwark against hate speech, harassment, and misinformation. But beneath the surface, a more insidious reality lurks – one that reveals content moderation to be a thinly veiled form of censorship, masquerading as a guardian of online discourse.
Theoretically, content moderation is rooted in the concept of "safe spaces," a notion popularized by social justice movements. The idea is that online platforms should provide a haven for users to express themselves without fear of reprisal or harassment. However, this laudable goal has been hijacked by corporate interests, who use moderation as a tool to suppress dissenting voices, stifle criticism, and maintain a sanitized online environment that is conducive to their bottom line.
One need look no further than the case of Twitter's "shadow banning" scandal to see this dynamic in action. In 2018, it was revealed that the platform had been secretly limiting the visibility of certain users, including conservative commentators and journalists, without their knowledge or consent. This practice, euphemistically referred to as "quality filtering," was justified as a means of reducing the spread of misinformation and hate speech. However, it soon became clear that the algorithm was being used to target specific individuals and viewpoints, rather than content that was objectively objectionable.
Similarly, Facebook's "fact-checking" initiative has been criticized for its blatant bias and lack of transparency. The platform's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, many of whom have been accused of having their own ideological agendas, has led to the suppression of legitimate news sources and the promotion of dubious information. This has created a situation in which users are forced to rely on Facebook's curated version of reality, rather than being able to engage with a diverse range of perspectives.
YouTube's "demonetization" policy is another example of content moderation gone awry. The platform's decision to remove ads from videos that contain "hate speech" or "harassment" has been used to silence creators who challenge the status quo or express unpopular opinions. This has created a chilling effect, in which creators are forced to self-censor in order to avoid losing their livelihoods.
But perhaps the most egregious example of content moderation as censorship is the case of Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist who was banned from multiple platforms in 2018. While Jones's views are undoubtedly repugnant to many, his ban raises important questions about the role of tech companies in policing online discourse. If Jones's content was truly as objectionable as claimed, why was it not sufficient to simply flag it as hate speech or harassment, rather than removing him from the platform entirely?
The answer, of course, lies in the fact that content moderation is not about protecting users from harm, but about maintaining a certain narrative or ideology. By controlling the flow of information and suppressing dissenting voices, tech companies are able to shape public opinion and maintain their grip on the online discourse.
In conclusion, the notion that content moderation is a benevolent force is a myth that has been perpetuated by tech giants to justify their censorship of online discourse. The examples cited above demonstrate that content moderation is often used as a tool to suppress dissenting voices, stifle criticism, and maintain a sanitized online environment that is conducive to corporate interests. It is time to recognize that content moderation is, in fact, a form of censorship, and to demand greater transparency and accountability from the tech companies that wield this power.