Deplatforming sex education on Meta: sex, power, and content moderation

IF 1.5 3区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION
Joanna Williams
{"title":"Deplatforming sex education on Meta: sex, power, and content moderation","authors":"Joanna Williams","doi":"10.1177/1329878x231210612","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Public health research has heralded social media as a space where sex education can be delivered to young people. However, sexual health organisations are increasingly concerned that restrictive content moderation practices impede their ability to distribute sex education content on social media platforms. To better understand these experiences, this article uses an autoethnographic case study of my experience navigating Meta's content moderation policies and practices when I promoted the Bits and Bods sex education web series. Using conjunctural analysis, I contextualise Bits and Bods's two experiences of content moderation (when our account was deleted from Instagram and advertising was rejected by Facebook) through policy analysis of Meta's content moderation policies. I then conclude by questioning whether public health practitioners should still be conceiving Meta's platforms as a space where they can deliver sex education to young people.","PeriodicalId":46880,"journal":{"name":"Media International Australia","volume":"44 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Media International Australia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x231210612","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Public health research has heralded social media as a space where sex education can be delivered to young people. However, sexual health organisations are increasingly concerned that restrictive content moderation practices impede their ability to distribute sex education content on social media platforms. To better understand these experiences, this article uses an autoethnographic case study of my experience navigating Meta's content moderation policies and practices when I promoted the Bits and Bods sex education web series. Using conjunctural analysis, I contextualise Bits and Bods's two experiences of content moderation (when our account was deleted from Instagram and advertising was rejected by Facebook) through policy analysis of Meta's content moderation policies. I then conclude by questioning whether public health practitioners should still be conceiving Meta's platforms as a space where they can deliver sex education to young people.
Meta上的性教育平台化:性、权力和内容节制
公共卫生研究预示着社交媒体是一个可以向年轻人提供性教育的空间。然而,性健康组织越来越担心,限制性的内容审核做法阻碍了他们在社交媒体平台上分发性教育内容的能力。为了更好地理解这些经历,本文使用了我在Meta网站推广Bits and Bods性教育系列的内容审核政策和实践中所经历的自我人种学案例研究。通过对Meta内容审核政策的政策分析,我将Bits和Bods的两次内容审核经历(我们的账户被从Instagram上删除,广告被Facebook拒绝)放在了背景中。最后,我质疑公共卫生从业者是否仍应将Meta的平台视为一个向年轻人提供性教育的空间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
66
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信