False Accusation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives

NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights: FEBRUARY 2021 REPORT RELEASE

False Accusation:
The Unfounded Claim that
Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives

The claim that social media companies censor conservatives has shaped debate about issues ranging from the fallout from the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot to reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms against liability for user posts and content moderation decisions. But the censorship claim is false, as our report demonstrates by analyzing available data and individual examples.

...

This accusation—that social media platforms suppress conservatives— riles a Republican base that has long distrusted the mainstream media and is prone to seeing public events as being shaped by murky liberal plots. On a policy level, the bias claim serves as a basis for Republican attacks on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the federal law that protects platforms from liability asso- ciated with user posts and content moderation decisions.

But the claim of anti-conservative animus is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it. No trustworthy large- scale studies have determined that conservative content is being removed for ideological reasons or that search- es are being manipulated to favor liberal interests.

Even anecdotal evidence of supposed bias tends to crumble under close examination.

...

Part 1 of this report provides an intro- duction and thematic overview. Part 2 charts the rise and spread of the bias claim, analyzing its various manifesta- tions. Part 3 assesses available data showing that conservatives enjoy a prominent place on major social media platforms—a situation unlikely to be true if conservatives were being systemati- cally suppressed. Part 4 offers a series of recommendations to the platforms and the administration of President Joe Biden, as they each consider how to respond to the bias claim.

 

Their recommendations:

For the social media industry:

1 Provide greater disclosure for content moderation actions. The platforms should give an easily under- stood explanation every time they sanction a post or account, as well as a readily available means to appeal enforcement actions. Greater transparency—such as that which Twitter and Facebook offered when they took action against President Trump in January—would help to defuse claims of political bias, while clarifying the boundaries of acceptable user conduct.

2 Offer users a choice among content moderation algorithms. Users would have greater agency if they were offered a menu of choices among algorithms. Under this system, each user would be given the option of retaining the existing moderation algorithm or choosing one that screens out harmful content more vigorously. The latter option also would provide enhanced engagement by human moderators operating under more restrictive policies. If users had the ability to select from among several systems, they would be empowered to choose an algorithm that reflects their values and preferences.

3 Undertake more vigorous, targeted human moderation of influential accounts. To avoid high-profile moderation mistakes, the platforms should significantly increase the number of full-time employees working directly for them who would help to create a more rigorous human-led moderation channel for the most influ- ential accounts. To supervise this and other important issues related to policing content, we recommend that the platforms each hire a senior executive—a content overseer—who reports directly to the CEO or COO.

4 Release more data for researchers. More granular disclosure would allow academics and civil society researchers to identify enforcement patterns, such as whether content is being removed for ideological reasons. This greater transparency should include the nature of any content that is removed, the particular rule(s) a post violated, how the platform became aware of noncompliance (user report versus algorithmic moderation), and how any appeals were resolved.


For the Biden administration:

5. Pursue a constructive reform agenda for social media. This will require the federal government to press Facebook, Google, and Twitter to improve content policies and their enforcement, even as the government pursues pending antitrust lawsuits against Facebook and Google. The industry, for its part, must strive with urgency to do a better job of protecting users and society at large from harmful content—progress that can’t wait for the resolution of what might be years-long antitrust court battles.

6. Work with Congress to update Section 230. The controversial law should be amended so that its liability shield is conditional, based on social media companies’ acceptance of a range of new responsibilities related to policing content. One of the new platform obligations could be ensuring that algorithms involved in content ranking and recommendation not favor sensationalistic or unreliable material in pursuit of user engagement.

7. Create a new Digital Regulatory Agency. The false claim of anti-conservative bias has contributed to widespread distrust of the platforms’ willingness and ability to govern their sites. A new independent authority, charged with enforcing the responsibilities of a revised Section 230, could begin to rebuild that eroded trust. As an alternative, expanded jurisdiction and funding for social media oversight could be directed to an existing agency such as the Federal Trade Commission or Federal Communications Commission.

 

How about not reinforce views based on sensationalistic or unreliable material? This is one of the recommendations.

6. Work with Congress to update Section 230. The controversial law should be amended so that its liability shield is conditional, based on social media companies’ acceptance of a range of new responsibilities related to policing content. One of the new platform obligations could be ensuring that algorithms involved in content ranking and recommendation not favor sensationalistic or unreliable material in pursuit of user engagement.