The article examines the ongoing transformation of content moderation on social media platforms, driven by new regulations like the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA). While aiming to make platforms more accountable and transparent, this shift towards "compliance" systems – similar to those used in finance or safety inspections – raises concerns about over-reliance on quantifiable metrics, the potential for increased censorship of lawful speech, stifling of innovation, and favoring of established platforms over smaller competitors. The article argues that while regulation is necessary, the complexity of online speech warrants a more nuanced approach than rigid, standardized systems.

Metadata

Summary

  • Social media platforms are shifting from individualized content moderation to standardized "compliance" systems, similar to those used in finance or safety inspections.
  • This shift is driven by regulations like the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA), which require platforms to standardize moderation processes and report decisions to regulators.
  • While intended to make platforms more accountable, this approach raises concerns about over-reliance on metrics, increased censorship of lawful speech, stifled innovation, and favoring large platforms.
  • The article argues that regulating complex human expression through rigid, standardized systems may be counterproductive and calls for a more nuanced approach.

What makes this novel or interesting

  • Provides an insider's perspective on the changing landscape of content moderation.
  • Critiques the current trend of "compliance-ization" in tech, arguing that it may not be suitable for regulating online speech.
  • Raises important questions about the future of free speech in the digital age.

Verbatim Quotes

  • Topic: Standardization vs. Nuance in Content Moderation
    • "The current wave of change takes platforms’ existing routinized speech governance to another level entirely. Framing content moderation as a compliance function puts it firmly within a legal practice area that often has stated goals like 'avoiding trouble' with regulators and creating a 'culture of compliance.'"
  • Topic: Potential Pitfalls of the Compliance Approach
    • "In other ways, the compliance model is a mismatch with the regulation of speech. Human rights systems around the world require that state control and influence over speech be kept to a minimum. The idea that states can govern speech-related 'systems' and 'metrics' without crossing the line into governing speech itself may yet prove to be dangerously naive."
  • Topic: Need for a More Nuanced Approach
    • "Platform trust and safety teams' attempts to govern users' speech and behavior are complex systems in the extreme. Regulation of those efforts is appropriate and inevitable. But it would be hubristic to think that we know what standardized systems or metrics can meaningfully measure success."

How to report this in the news

Imagine a world where every decision a bookstore owner makes about which books to stock, display, or remove is dictated by a strict set of rules and audited by the government. That's essentially what's happening on social media platforms today as content moderation shifts from human judgment to standardized "compliance" systems. While proponents argue this ensures accountability and transparency, critics warn it could stifle free speech and innovation.

Detailed Recap

for Tech Platform Owners and Regulators

The Shift Towards "Compliance"

  • Content Moderation is Becoming a "Compliance Function": Similar to financial regulations or safety protocols, platforms are now building systems and processes for auditable content moderation.
  • Driven by Regulations: Laws like the EU's DSA and similar regulations globally are pushing this change, requiring platforms to standardize, document, and report their content moderation decisions.
  • From "Artisanal" to "Industrial": This marks a departure from the early, more ad-hoc approaches to content moderation, particularly for larger platforms.

Implications for Platforms

  • Resource Allocation: Platforms need to invest in building robust compliance systems, potentially diverting resources from other areas.
  • Standardization of Processes: Emphasis is shifting from individual judgment calls to adherence to predefined rules and categories, potentially impacting the handling of nuanced content.
  • Increased Interaction with Regulators: Platforms should anticipate greater scrutiny from regulators, including data requests and audits.
  • Risk of Overcompliance: Platforms may err on the side of removing more content to avoid regulatory action, potentially impacting legitimate speech.
  • Competitive Disadvantage: Smaller platforms with fewer resources may struggle to comply with the new requirements, creating a barrier to entry.

Considerations for Regulators

  • Unintended Consequences of Overregulation: Be mindful of the potential for regulations to stifle innovation and disproportionately impact smaller platforms.
  • Balancing Compliance with Free Expression: Ensure regulations don't inadvertently lead to the suppression of lawful speech.
  • Focus on Meaningful Metrics: Avoid overreliance on easily quantifiable metrics that may not accurately reflect the nuances of content moderation.
  • Transparency and Public Discourse: Foster open dialogue with platforms, experts, and the public about the impact of regulations on online speech.

Key Questions Moving Forward

  • How can platforms balance the need for compliance with protecting free expression and fostering a diverse online ecosystem?
  • How can regulators ensure accountability without stifling innovation or leading to over-censorship?
  • What are the long-term consequences of the "compliance model" for the future of online speech and the internet as a whole?