The Impact of Content Moderation on Trust and Social Cohesion
Talking about Facebook’s censorship on Facebook is a complicated task.
I don’t want to challenge the work of fact-checkers. At this point, it seems pointless, and I trust that all Meta platforms will gradually normalize.
Instead, I want to examine the effects of fact-checking and how it has increased social fragmentation, frustration, and resentment.
Every form of censorship claims to have a noble purpose, to be infallible, and to be justified by some kind of urgency. However, history has consistently disproven these claims.
Censorship has always created a thriving market for "forbidden news": sometimes true, sometimes incredibly false. It has also given credibility to certain bizarre theories.
Instinctively, we tend to believe that news is banned because it is inconvenient for those in power. We believe this because, most of the time, it is true.
Censorship also fosters distrust in authority. If an authority is afraid of the truth, it loses all credibility.
The adoption of massive content control on the world’s most widely used social media platforms has had the same consequences as every form of censorship known throughout history.
Social media censorship has also had other consequences, some entirely new.
Throughout history, every form of information control has been accompanied by some form of violent repression of dissent and by a clear definition of forbidden topics. Social media censorship, however, is characterized by its unpredictability and, obviously, is not accompanied by any form of violent repression: it also targets news and topics that publishers perceive as legitimate and merely prevents their dissemination.
I believe that this form of information control has amplified frustration and anger, dividing society into clans—or, more precisely, fan bases.
Very often, fact-checkers have blocked the publication of true news or legitimate opinions, simply because they considered them unpleasant or due to pressure from particularly influential lobby groups.
Even though it concerns the commercial decisions of a private operator, this behavior has contributed to destroying trust in institutions, science, and the media.
These are the unintended consequences that we still struggle to recognize, which push us to embrace unhealthy forms of social determinism.
What do you think?
I don’t want to challenge the work of fact-checkers. At this point, it seems pointless, and I trust that all Meta platforms will gradually normalize.
Instead, I want to examine the effects of fact-checking and how it has increased social fragmentation, frustration, and resentment.
Every form of censorship claims to have a noble purpose, to be infallible, and to be justified by some kind of urgency. However, history has consistently disproven these claims.
Censorship has always created a thriving market for "forbidden news": sometimes true, sometimes incredibly false. It has also given credibility to certain bizarre theories.
Instinctively, we tend to believe that news is banned because it is inconvenient for those in power. We believe this because, most of the time, it is true.
Censorship also fosters distrust in authority. If an authority is afraid of the truth, it loses all credibility.
The adoption of massive content control on the world’s most widely used social media platforms has had the same consequences as every form of censorship known throughout history.
Social media censorship has also had other consequences, some entirely new.
Throughout history, every form of information control has been accompanied by some form of violent repression of dissent and by a clear definition of forbidden topics. Social media censorship, however, is characterized by its unpredictability and, obviously, is not accompanied by any form of violent repression: it also targets news and topics that publishers perceive as legitimate and merely prevents their dissemination.
I believe that this form of information control has amplified frustration and anger, dividing society into clans—or, more precisely, fan bases.
Very often, fact-checkers have blocked the publication of true news or legitimate opinions, simply because they considered them unpleasant or due to pressure from particularly influential lobby groups.
Even though it concerns the commercial decisions of a private operator, this behavior has contributed to destroying trust in institutions, science, and the media.
These are the unintended consequences that we still struggle to recognize, which push us to embrace unhealthy forms of social determinism.
What do you think?
No comments have been added yet.
