The shadow banning controversy: perceived governance and algorithmic folklore

Abstract

In this paper, I approach platform governance through algorithmic folklore, consisting of beliefs and narratives about moderation systems that are passed on informally and can exist in tension with official accounts. More specifically, I analyse user discussions on ‘shadow banning’, a controversial, potentially non-existing form of content moderation on popular social media platforms. I argue that discursive mobilisations of the term can act as a methodological entry point to studying the shifting grounds and emerging logics of algorithmic governance, not necessarily in terms of the actual practices themselves, but in terms of its experiential dimension that, in turn, indicates broader modalities and relationalities of control. Based on my analysis of the user discussions, I argue that the constitutive logics of social media platforms increasingly seem to run counter to the values of good governance, such as clarity and stability of norms, and consistency of enforcement. This is reflected in how users struggle, desperately, to form expectations about system operation and police themselves according to perceived rules, yet are left in a state of dependency and frustration, unable to take hold of their digital futures.

Platform governance at the margins: Social media creators’ experiences with algorithmic (in)visibility

“…Understanding social media creators’ experiences with platform (in)visibility seems especially critical given their role in reconfiguring both the processes and products of cultural production (Poell et al, 2021). Accordingly, this study examines creators’ perceptions of algorithmic platform governance, which Savolainen (2022) defines as “social ordering carried out by social media platforms through the employment of automated means, blending human and machinic agency” (p. 2). Following from writings on algorithmic imaginaries (Bishop, 2019; Bucher, 2017), we acknowledge the interrelated nature of user perceptions and practices , particularly in cases where the material realities of software are belied by their opacity (Natale, 2019: 713).…”

An autoethnography of automated powerlessness: lacking platform affordances in Instagram and TikTok account deletions

“…Social media moderation research has so far explored platforms' 'shadowbanning' of content and profiles, hiding users from apps' main feeds without their knowledge and de facto limiting their visibility and reach (Are, 2021c;Are and Paasonen, 2021;Cotter, 2021;Savolainen, 2022), as well as practices such as 'flagging' (Crawford and Gillespie, 2016;Fiore-Silfvast, 2012;Peterson, 2013).…”

Do Not Recommend? Reduction as a Form of Content Moderation

“…While not all of these accusations will prove to be true, and some are politically self-serving for those making them, they tap into an underlying truth: platforms are in fact using a wider array of tools to shape the flow of information, in ways that are not particularly transparent. Frustrated users grapple with that uncertainty, asserting that they are being thwarted—yet any assertion “falls short as actionable knowledge” (Savolainen, 2022, p. 7). It is disheartening, even reprehensible, that our best evidence of these techniques continues to come from surveys of users who suspect that they have been shadowbanned (Nicholas, 2022).…”