Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance

As government pressure on major technology companies builds, both firms and legislators are searching for technical solutions to difficult platform governance puzzles such as hate speech and misinformation. Automated hash-matching and predictive machine learning tools – what we define here as algorithmic moderation systems – are increasingly being deployed to conduct content moderation at scale by major platforms for user-generated content such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. This article provides an accessible technical primer on how algorithmic moderation works; examines some of the existing automated tools used by major platforms to handle copyright infringement, terrorism and toxic speech; and identifies key political and ethical issues for these systems as the reliance on them grows. Recent events suggest that algorithmic moderation has become necessary to manage growing public expectations for increased platform responsibility, safety and security on the global stage; however, as we demonstrate, these systems remain opaque, unaccountable and poorly understood. Despite the potential promise of algorithms or ‘AI’, we show that even ‘well optimized’ moderation systems could exacerbate, rather than relieve, many existing problems with content policy as enacted by platforms for three main reasons: automated moderation threatens to (a) further increase opacity, making a famously non-transparent set of practices even more difficult to understand or audit, (b) further complicate outstanding issues of fairness and justice in large-scale sociotechnical systems and (c) re-obscure the fundamentally political nature of speech decisions being executed at scale.

[1]  Lucas Dixon,et al.  Ex Machina: Personal Attacks Seen at Scale , 2016, WWW.

[2]  Ingmar Weber,et al.  Understanding Abuse: A Typology of Abusive Language Detection Subtasks , 2017, ALW@ACL.

[3]  Ricardo Baeza-Yates,et al.  FA*IR: A Fair Top-k Ranking Algorithm , 2017, CIKM.

[4]  N. Elkin-Koren,et al.  Behind the Scenes of Online Copyright Enforcement: Empirical Evidence on Notice & Takedown , 2018 .

[5]  Michael Veale,et al.  Like Trainer, Like Bot? Inheritance of Bias in Algorithmic Content Moderation , 2017, SocInfo.

[6]  Ronak Patel First World Problems: A Fair Use Analysis of Internet Memes , 2013 .

[7]  Brendan T. O'Connor,et al.  Demographic Dialectal Variation in Social Media: A Case Study of African-American English , 2016, EMNLP.

[8]  James Grimmelmann,et al.  The Virtues of Moderation , 2015 .

[9]  Jenna Burrell,et al.  How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms , 2016 .

[10]  Nicolas Suzor,et al.  Lawless: the secret rules that govern our digital lives , 2018 .

[11]  M. Soha,et al.  Monetizing a Meme: YouTube, Content ID, and the Harlem Shake , 2016 .

[12]  R. Stuart Geiger,et al.  Bots, bespoke, code and the materiality of software platforms , 2014 .

[13]  Ying Chen,et al.  Detecting Offensive Language in Social Media to Protect Adolescent Online Safety , 2012, 2012 International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2012 International Confernece on Social Computing.

[14]  Christopher G. Harris,et al.  A Combined Corner and Edge Detector , 1988, Alvey Vision Conference.

[15]  Michael Wiegand,et al.  A Survey on Hate Speech Detection using Natural Language Processing , 2017, SocialNLP@EACL.

[16]  Julie E. Cohen,et al.  Fair Use Infrastructure for Copyright Management Systems , 2000 .

[17]  Jennifer M. Urban,et al.  Notice and Takedown in Everyday Practice , 2016 .

[18]  M. Kearns,et al.  Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art , 2017, Sociological Methods & Research.

[19]  M. C. Elish,et al.  Situating methods in the magic of Big Data and AI , 2018 .

[20]  Natasha Duarte,et al.  Mixed Messages? The Limits of Automated Social Media Content Analysis , 2018, FAT.

[21]  Nicole Immorlica,et al.  Locality-sensitive hashing scheme based on p-stable distributions , 2004, SCG '04.

[22]  Geoff Kaufman,et al.  Moderator engagement and community development in the age of algorithms , 2019, New Media Soc..

[23]  Robert Gorwa,et al.  Democratic Transparency in the Platform Society , 2020 .

[24]  Kate Klonick,et al.  Facebook v. Sullivan: Building Constitutional Law for Online Speech , 2019, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[25]  Jiao Yu-hua,et al.  An Overview of Perceptual Hashing , 2008 .

[26]  Marcel Broersma,et al.  Witnessing in the new memory ecology: Memory construction of the Syrian conflict on YouTube , 2017, New Media Soc..

[27]  Mike Ananny,et al.  Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability , 2018, New Media Soc..

[28]  Alexandra Chouldechova,et al.  A case study of algorithm-assisted decision making in child maltreatment hotline screening decisions , 2018, FAT.

[29]  Sarah T. Roberts,et al.  Behind the Screen , 2019 .

[30]  Jeffrey Dean,et al.  Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality , 2013, NIPS.

[31]  Sarah T. Roberts Digital detritus: 'Error' and the logic of opacity in social media content moderation , 2018, First Monday.

[32]  R. Stuart Geiger The Lives of Bots , 2018, ArXiv.

[33]  Julie E. Cohen,et al.  Fair Use Infrastructure for Rights Management Systems , 2004 .

[34]  Sarah Myers West,et al.  What do we mean when we talk about transparency? Towards meaningful transparency in commercial content moderation , 2019 .

[35]  Robert Gorwa The platform governance triangle: conceptualising the informal regulation of online content , 2019, Internet Policy Rev..

[36]  Reuben Binns,et al.  Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophy , 2017, FAT.

[37]  Robert Gorwa,et al.  What is platform governance? , 2019, Information, Communication & Society.

[38]  Nathan Srebro,et al.  Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning , 2016, NIPS.

[39]  Radha Poovendran,et al.  Deceiving Google's Perspective API Built for Detecting Toxic Comments , 2017, ArXiv.

[40]  Niva Elkin-Koren,et al.  Accountability in Algorithmic Copyright Enforcement , 2016 .

[41]  A. Hoffmann Where fairness fails: data, algorithms, and the limits of antidiscrimination discourse , 2019, Information, Communication & Society.

[42]  David Stuart,et al.  SPAM: A Shadow History of the Internet , 2014 .

[43]  Michael D. Ekstrand,et al.  Exploring author gender in book rating and recommendation , 2018, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[44]  Kate Crawford,et al.  Can an Algorithm be Agonistic? Ten Scenes from Life in Calculated Publics , 2016 .

[45]  Paul Resnick,et al.  Slash(dot) and burn: distributed moderation in a large online conversation space , 2004, CHI.

[46]  Andrew D. Selbst,et al.  Big Data's Disparate Impact , 2016 .

[47]  Ellen Spertus,et al.  Smokey: Automatic Recognition of Hostile Messages , 1997, AAAI/IAAI.

[48]  Henry Lieberman,et al.  Common Sense Reasoning for Detection, Prevention, and Mitigation of Cyberbullying , 2012, TIIS.

[49]  K. Erickson,et al.  “This Video is Unavailable”: Analyzing Copyright Takedown of User-Generated Content on YouTube , 2018 .