Stringent Censorship Policies

The Dangers of Censorship Policies and Algorithm Bias on Facebook

Today, social media platforms have connected the whole world. By December of 2017, a third of the total human population in the world used or owned a social media account (Dencik & In Leistert, 2015). This number has since increase day by day. One of the reasons why most people initially joined social media is not only to enjoy virtual interactions, but also have freedom of speech, albeit anonymously, in some instances. However, things have changed with all these censorship policies in place. While they have played a vital role in warding off hate mongers and online bullying, they have also censored vital elements of speech. Facebook, for instance, a platform that has the majority of social media users, and which are estimated to be around 65 per cent of the online community, has been on the fore front with the stringent censorship policies. The U.S and the U.K has been most hit in these Facebook censorship policies, as half of its populations not only own accounts, but are also ardent Facebook users. When asked to define hate speech according to Facebook community standards earlier on in April, Zuckerberg admitted that hate speech was an ambiguous definition and said that it was one of the challenges they face at Facebook as they try to regulate speech on the platform. Thus, this goes to show that part of the ongoing censorship policies will only create more confusion for the users.

In recent times, Facebook has also introduced algorithms. In this case, they listen in to the conversations of their users and use this information to create data for marketing purposes. This is not only discriminatory and bias, but it is also an infringement of the rights and privacy of its users. It is clear that Facebook just like all other popular social media platforms are profiting from the network. There are two categories of Facebook users, the sellers and the target customers. Facebook is not only a network for social interactions; it is also a business platform or an advertising agency. In a congressional hearing in April 2018, Zuckerberg admitted, “Mr. Senator, we sell ads on Facebook.” Therefore, this goes to prove the monopoly argument when it comes to social media and especially, popular platforms such as facebook.

Bizarre Examples of “Censorship” Caused by Human or Algorithms Errors

Social media censorship policies come in many forms. These forms may include infringed freedom of expression, restriction of certain information, inability to access certain sites, restricting online anonymity or shutting down online platforms in general, like some parts of Asia. In china, for instance, one of their most popular social media platform, Weibo, which is the equivalent of Twitter was censored from posting interactive stickers (emojis) and Disney’s popular show, Winnie the Pooh. This censor came after most users used these character and emojis to create memes that were believed to mock president Xi Jinping. Before the censorship, these memes went viral and compared the president to Winnie the Pooh after he answered a courtesy call from Shinzo Abe, the Prime Minister of Japan. In 2012, a country in central Asia banned Wikipedia from using its Uzbekistan language (Simon, 2015). As a result, they felt that it would successfully “protect” its citizens from being fed with misinformation and explicit content.

In July 2018, Facebook marked a post about declaration of independence as hate speech. Later they apologized for removing the post. The post featured section 27-31 of the independence declaration. Once it was posted, the managing director of Vindicator received a warning notice from Facebook to take the post down as it had apparently violated the hate speech standards on Facebook. A photo of Santa Clause kneeling in front of an image of Jesus was also barred on Facebook. While it was not taken down, viewers’ discretion was advised. Facebook gives such treatment to “graphic” and “violent” images. When asked about this particular censorship, Facebook argued that the image would upset sensitive groups (Simon, 2015). It is, therefore, difficult to determine what content Facebook views safe for all and what they deem as explicit.

Recently, both Facebook and Google pulled down the video “Creepy Line” by Peter Schweizer. The video was also barred on YouTube on claims that it the video promotes violence and it would be misconstrued by young people. Therefore, the question then arises, “does the censorship on social media platforms an anti-capitalist bias or a genuine algorithm protecting minors from explicit content and violence?” To answer this, there is a need to understand that popular online platforms such as Facebook and Google have been accorded too much power by regulators of online platforms. Thus, in the coming days, it is likely that these social media corporation giants are going to exploit these powers.

In the recent past, it has become difficult to keep track of the number of posts that have been flagged down by Facebook for what they deem as explicit content. Its fact-check partners are no better and for the past two years, users have experienced a culture shock regarding what Facebook community standards term as explicit or hate speech (Simon, 2015). This can only work against Facebook in the end. Users will look for other platforms with lesser restrictions, or quit social media in general. False flags have definitely started to reduce the amount of Facebook traffic by close to 40 percent already. Therefore, Zuckerberg will need to draw the lines that will establish what exactly qualifies to be flagged down and return the freedom of speech on Facebook before it is too late.

Cite this page