Bias in Social Media Content Management: What Do Human Rights Have to Do with It?

IF 1.2 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AJIL Unbound Pub Date : 2023-06-26 DOI:10.1017/aju.2023.23
Dorothea Endres, Luisa Hedler, Kebene Wodajo
{"title":"Bias in Social Media Content Management: What Do Human Rights Have to Do with It?","authors":"Dorothea Endres, Luisa Hedler, Kebene Wodajo","doi":"10.1017/aju.2023.23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a global context where political campaigning, social movements, and public discourse increasingly take place online, questions regarding the regulation of speech by social media platforms become ever more relevant. Companies like Facebook moderate content posted by users on their platforms through a mixture of automated decision making and human moderators. In this content moderation process, human rights play an ambiguous role: those who struggle with marginalization may find a space for expression and empowerment, or face exacerbation of pre-existing bias. Focusing on the role of human rights in Meta's content management, this essay explores how the protection of speech on social media platforms disadvantages the cultural, social, and economic rights of marginalized communities. This is not to say that speech on social media platforms is devoid of emancipatory potential, but that this potential is not uniformly or equally accessible. We see the incorporation of human rights considerations into decision-making processes as an avenue for alleviating this challenge. This approach faces obstacles from the platforms’ business models, which decenters human rights concerns, and from the limitations of liberal accounts of human rights. From within and against these constraints, human rights can be mobilized as emancipatory power in an effort to decrease marginalization.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJIL Unbound","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2023.23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In a global context where political campaigning, social movements, and public discourse increasingly take place online, questions regarding the regulation of speech by social media platforms become ever more relevant. Companies like Facebook moderate content posted by users on their platforms through a mixture of automated decision making and human moderators. In this content moderation process, human rights play an ambiguous role: those who struggle with marginalization may find a space for expression and empowerment, or face exacerbation of pre-existing bias. Focusing on the role of human rights in Meta's content management, this essay explores how the protection of speech on social media platforms disadvantages the cultural, social, and economic rights of marginalized communities. This is not to say that speech on social media platforms is devoid of emancipatory potential, but that this potential is not uniformly or equally accessible. We see the incorporation of human rights considerations into decision-making processes as an avenue for alleviating this challenge. This approach faces obstacles from the platforms’ business models, which decenters human rights concerns, and from the limitations of liberal accounts of human rights. From within and against these constraints, human rights can be mobilized as emancipatory power in an effort to decrease marginalization.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社交媒体内容管理中的偏见:人权与之有什么关系?
在全球范围内,政治竞选、社会运动和公共话语越来越多地在网上进行,社交媒体平台对言论的监管问题变得越来越重要。像脸书这样的公司通过自动化决策和人工版主的混合方式,对用户在其平台上发布的内容进行调节。在这一内容节制过程中,人权扮演着一个模糊的角色:那些与边缘化作斗争的人可能会找到表达和赋权的空间,或者面临预先存在的偏见的加剧。围绕人权在Meta内容管理中的作用,本文探讨了社交媒体平台上的言论保护如何损害边缘化社区的文化、社会和经济权利。这并不是说社交媒体平台上的言论缺乏解放潜力,而是说这种潜力不是统一或平等的。我们认为,将人权考虑纳入决策过程是缓解这一挑战的途径。这种方法面临着来自平台商业模式的障碍,这些模式分散了对人权的关注,以及自由主义人权观的局限性。从内部和克服这些限制,可以动员人权作为解放力量,努力减少边缘化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AJIL Unbound
AJIL Unbound Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Introduction to the Symposium on International Laws Public and Private The Private as a Core Part of International Law: The School of Salamanca, Slavery, and Marriage (Sixteenth Century) Gendering Public and Private International Law: Transversal Legal Histories of the State, Market, and the Family through Women's Private Property Rights Lawyers, Archivists, and the Turn to Transparency in the French State Foreign Relations Law as a Method of Private International Law's Theoretical Self-Reflection and Critique
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1