The Authority to Moderate: Social Media Moderation and its Limits

Philosophy and Technology 36 (4):1-22 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The negative impacts of social media have given rise to philosophical questions around whether social media companies have the authority to regulate user-generated content on their platforms. The most popular justification for that authority is to appeal to private ownership rights. Social media companies own their platforms, and their ownership comes with various rights that ground their authority to moderate user-generated content on their platforms. However, we argue that ownership rights can be limited when their exercise results in significant harms to others or the perpetration of injustices. We outline some of the substantive harms that social media platforms inflict through their practices of content moderation and some of the procedural injustices that arise through their arbitrary application of community guidelines. This provides a normative basis for calls to better regulate user-generated content on social media platforms. We conclude by considering some of the political and legal implications of our argument.

Similar books and articles

Content moderation, AI, and the question of scale.Tarleton Gillespie - 2020 - Big Data and Society 7 (2):2053951720943234.
Reframing authority: the role of media and materiality.Laura Feldt (ed.) - 2018 - Bristol: Equinox Publishing.
Herbert Marcuse and Social Media.Christian Fuchs - 2016 - Radical Philosophy Review 19 (1):111-141.
Social Media, Digital Technology, and Education: Personalized Learning and Questions of Autonomy, Authority, and Public/Community.Heather Greenhalgh-Spencer - 2018 - In Ann Chinnery, Nuraan Davids, Naomi Hodgson, Kai Horsthemke, Viktor Johansson, Dirk Willem Postma, Claudia W. Ruitenberg, Paul Smeyers, Christiane Thompson, Joris Vlieghe, Hanan Alexander, Joop Berding, Charles Bingham, Michael Bonnett, David Bridges, Malte Brinkmann, Brian A. Brown, Carsten Bünger, Nicholas C. Burbules, Rita Casale, M. Victoria Costa, Brian Coyne, Renato Huarte Cuéllar, Stefaan E. Cuypers, Johan Dahlbeck, Suzanne de Castell, Doret de Ruyter, Samantha Deane, Sarah J. DesRoches, Eduardo Duarte, Denise Egéa, Penny Enslin, Oren Ergas, Lynn Fendler, Sheron Fraser-Burgess, Norm Friesen, Amanda Fulford, Heather Greenhalgh-Spencer, Stefan Herbrechter, Chris Higgins, Pádraig Hogan, Katariina Holma, Liz Jackson, Ronald B. Jacobson, Jennifer Jenson, Kerstin Jergus, Clarence W. Joldersma, Mark E. Jonas, Zdenko Kodelja, Wendy Kohli, Anna Kouppanou, Heikki A. Kovalainen, Lesley Le Grange, David Lewin, Tyson E. Lewis, Gerard Lum, Niclas Månsson, Christopher Martin & Jan Masschelein (eds.), International Handbook of Philosophy of Education. Springer Verlag. pp. 1307-1320.
Contestation and Representation.Jajang Jahroni & Andi M. Faisal Bakti - 2022 - Epistemé: Jurnal Pengembangan Ilmu Keislaman 17 (2):167-196.
Authority of Law.Vincent A. Wellman - 2010 - In Dennis Patterson (ed.), A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Oxford, UK: Wiley‐Blackwell. pp. 559–570.
Thinking social media from ethical viewpoint.Joji Nakaya - 2015 - Asian Journal of Business Ethics 4 (1):1-13.
The Technology of Public Shaming.Harrison Frye - 2021 - Social Philosophy and Policy 38 (2):128-145.
Redefining the Technology of Media.Kirsty Best - 2010 - Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 14 (2):140-157.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-12-14

Downloads
255 (#78,335)

6 months
255 (#9,354)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Paul Formosa
Macquarie University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations