Content Moderation As a Political Issue: The Twitter Discourse Around Trump's Ban

Meysam Alizadeh, F. Gilardi, E. Hoes, K. J. Klüser, M. Kubli, Nahema Marchal, Donald J. Trump
{"title":"Content Moderation As a Political Issue: The Twitter Discourse Around Trump's Ban","authors":"Meysam Alizadeh, F. Gilardi, E. Hoes, K. J. Klüser, M. Kubli, Nahema Marchal, Donald J. Trump","doi":"10.51685/jqd.2022.023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Content moderation — the regulation of the material that users create and disseminate online — is an important activity for all social media platforms. While routine, this practice raises significant questions linked to democratic accountability and civil liberties. Following the decision of many platforms to ban Donald J. Trump in the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. Capitol in January 2021, content moderation has increasingly become a politically contested issue. This paper studies that process with a focus on the public discourse on Twitter. The analysis includes over 9 million tweets and retweets posted by over 3 million unique users between January 2020 and April 2021. First, the salience of content moderation was driven by left-leaning users, and \"Section 230\" was the most important topic across the ideological spectrum. Second, stance towards Section 230 was relatively volatile and increasingly polarized. These findings highlight relevant elements of the ongoing process of political contestation surrounding this issue, and provide a descriptive foundation to understand the politics of content moderation.","PeriodicalId":93587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of quantitative description: digital media","volume":"117 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of quantitative description: digital media","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2022.023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Content moderation — the regulation of the material that users create and disseminate online — is an important activity for all social media platforms. While routine, this practice raises significant questions linked to democratic accountability and civil liberties. Following the decision of many platforms to ban Donald J. Trump in the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. Capitol in January 2021, content moderation has increasingly become a politically contested issue. This paper studies that process with a focus on the public discourse on Twitter. The analysis includes over 9 million tweets and retweets posted by over 3 million unique users between January 2020 and April 2021. First, the salience of content moderation was driven by left-leaning users, and "Section 230" was the most important topic across the ideological spectrum. Second, stance towards Section 230 was relatively volatile and increasingly polarized. These findings highlight relevant elements of the ongoing process of political contestation surrounding this issue, and provide a descriptive foundation to understand the politics of content moderation.
内容审核作为一个政治问题:围绕特朗普禁令的推特话语
内容审核——对用户在网上创建和传播的内容进行监管——是所有社交媒体平台的一项重要活动。这种做法虽然是例行公事,但却引发了与民主问责制和公民自由有关的重大问题。在2021年1月美国国会大厦遭到袭击后,许多平台决定禁止唐纳德·j·特朗普(Donald J. Trump),内容审核越来越成为一个有政治争议的问题。本文以Twitter上的公共话语为重点研究这一过程。该分析包括2020年1月至2021年4月期间300多万独立用户发布的900多万条推文和转发。首先,内容审核的重要性是由左倾用户推动的,而“第230条”是跨意识形态范围最重要的话题。第二,对第230条的立场相对不稳定,而且越来越两极化。这些发现突出了围绕这一问题正在进行的政治争论过程的相关因素,并为理解内容节制的政治提供了描述性的基础。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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