Description:
In January 2020, a United States drone strike targeted and killed a top general of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) - Qassem Soleimani. Solemani was commander of the Quds Force—an elite unit of the IRGC which has been designated a terrorist organization by the U.S., Canada, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The strike attracted strong reactions from within Iran and millions of individuals and organizations flocked to Instagram to share their views about the killing. With an estimated 24 million active users, and as one of the few western-built social media apps not banned by the government, Instagram is an important communications tool in Iran. In the days following the event, accounts of Iranian newspapers, news agencies, at least 15 Iranian journalists, as well as several human rights activists and celebrities were either suspended or censored by Instagram. While the full scope of censorship on Instagram around Solemani's killing is not known, its parent company Facebook clarified that it removed “posts commending or supporting groups labeled foreign terrorist organizations by the U.S. State Department”. Although the company later restored some profiles, posts containing information or references about Soleimani's death were deleted permanently. Facebook's decision to go beyond U.N. terrorist sanctions lists and censor posts published by media professionals, and unaffiliated users raises questions about its stated commitment to the values of free expression and ensuring that its users have a “voice.” The incident also illustrates how private platforms like Facebook and Twitter that are not elected bodies are emerging as an influential force in international and geopolitical affairs. Whether we consider platforms taking action against accounts allegedly backed by the Chinese government to spread disinformation on Hong Kong protests, or Facebook's informal agreement with the Israeli government to work together to address incitement on its platform, it is increasingly apparent that platforms content moderation standards, business practices, and its relationships with nation states effectively arbitrate which narratives can reach the global public. While content moderation are essential functions of a platform's business, policies and practices of global platforms carry with them the capacity to reshape the dynamics of public discourse and are also changing the way political power can be organized and exercised across borders. In the absence of transparency and accountability, the rules and procedures for content moderation established and enforced by private platforms pose a threat to democratic culture as they can severely limit participation and impact the individual interests of the platform’s users—particularly minority groups and marginalized communities at risk. This workshop will examine how platforms content moderation standards are reconfiguring traditional allocations of responsibility, accountability, and power in societies. Panelists will examine content moderation practices to highlight how constantly evolving and malleable standards and guidelines can contribute to differential treatment of similar content on platforms. The aim of the discussion is to draw attention to how inconsistency in enforcement of content moderation standards can reinforce and magnify existing power disparities. The workshop will posit steps to foster greater transparency and accountability towards even enforcement of community standards on platforms.
