Algorithms patrolling content: where’s the harm?

ABSTRACT

At the heart of this paper is an examination of the colloquial concept of a ‘shadow ban’. It reveals ways in which algorithms on the Facebook platform have the effect of suppressing content distribution without specifically targeting it for removal, and examines the consequential stifling of users’ speech. It reveals how the Facebook shadow ban is implemented by blocking dissemination of content in News Feed. The decision-making criteria are based on ‘behaviour’, a term that relates to activity of the page that is identifiable through patterns in the data. It’s a technique that is rooted in computer security, and raises questions about the balance between security and freedom of expression. The paper is situated in the field of responsibility of online platforms for content moderation. It studies the experience of the shadow ban on 20 UK-based Facebook Pages over the period from November 2019 to January 2021. The potential harm was evaluated using human rights standards and a comparative metric produced from Facebook Insights data. The empirical research is connected to recent legislative developments: the EU’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Bill. Its most salient contribution may be around ‘behaviour’ monitoring and its interpretation by legislators.

KEYWORDS:

• Online platform accountability
• shadow bans
• digital services act
• online safety bill
• behaviour monitoring

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to acknowledge the kind support of Scientists for EU and Dr Mike Galsworthy, who called on me to help some of the Page administrators, and drew my attention to the issue of shadow bans. It was this work that established the foundations of the research which became this paper. I subsequently came into contact with other Page administrators who were experiencing the same issues and reinforced my conclusions. This study could not have happened without their assistance (and persistence!), including Beth Linton, Adam Brady, Peter Packham, Syd Cottle, and Mark Cunliffe. I would also like to thank Joe McNamee for his thoughtful feedback, and Professor Robin Mansell, Professor Juliet Lodge and Dr Miranda Mowbray for their insights.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).